Talk:General Roman Calendar/Archive 3

Continuation after the closed RfC
Either the discussions regarding the admissibility of the list progress or else any issue regarding the admissibility of the list should be put aside and editors should focus on making the list as useful as possible in respect of the guidelines and policies. There is no need to wait for ever. My position is that the "Blessed" and "Saint" can be useful information for some readers and that the entries, using the uniformity argument ("Epiphany", "Presentation of the Lord", etc.), are titles of feast days. To answer the concern expressed by some, yes in "Saint Louis IX of France, king, Patron of the III Order", "Louis IX of France" is the name of a person and "king", etc. inform about that person, but that can happen in a title. In this case, WP:MOS says that we must use rules that apply to titles. In particular, the rule that says that we can add "Saint" in the name of a person, but only if this person is known under that name in most sources, e.g., "Mother Teresa", does not apply. Instead, we use the rule that says that if "Saint" is part of a title, it's fine. I agree with the conclusion of the RfC that we must provide as much context as possible to make it clear that they are titles of feast days. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove the Copy edit tag. Many editors expressed the opinion that some modifications are needed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are certainly edits needed, but I couldn't find any needed applications of MOS:HON, which is what the tag indicates. Jdcompguy (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Local editors can do it, but the tag asked other editors for help and that was not a bad thing. It is related to MOS:HON. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The tag in question asks for copy editing help, but we're not at that point yet. Instead, we need tags that ask for discussion help. I intend to soon put forth a proposal for how to proceed in a new section below and will add tags as appropriate. Jdcompguy (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Michaelmas
@Samhistory123 has today added `Michaelmas` to the feast of the Archangels, but I don’t think it should be used in the list of the celebrations. I suggest to revert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Roman_Calendar&diff=1046939583&oldid=1045400755. 7otto (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Medusahead removed the change, threfore there is nothing to do now. Thanks! 7otto (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please check for non neutral statements
The following sentence is problematic: There are two issues in that sentence. First, "common" is a vague term. Which people have this misconception or which do not have this misconception (and thus must be excluded from the range covered by "common")? Second, who claims that there is a common misconception? By definition, it is a controversial statement, because many people (perhaps by misconception) think differently. Therefore, the claim (apparently free from misconceptions) must be attributed. This would take care of the first problem as well, as long as the attributed claim is indeed vague. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No continent-related stuff in the GRC and continental calendars
@Medusahead made recently two changes:
 * first;
 * second.

Both changes are about adding changes to the GRC that are valid for Europe only, therefore I don’t think it should be part of the GRC celebration list.

Moreover, I think that we should add another section besides the GRC and national calendars: continental calendars. Although there is no such calendar used officially, all particular calendars inherit celebrations first from the GRC and then from continental calendar. Then we should remove all these celebrations from the national/diocesian calendars (unless there is a change, e.g. Sts Cyril and Methodius is a feast in Europe, but a solemnity in Czech Republic and Slovakia).

When we separate the article into two articles (the GRC and national calendars), there should be a third one for the continental calendars. 7otto (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it was just an idea. If you don't like it, you can take it out again. The idea of inserting a passus "continental calendars" appears to me a bit strange (and complicated, too), as it does not correspond to the underlying structure of the General Roman Calendar and the regional calendars for countries or language areas. As far as I know, there are no such "continental" calendars. All of the mentioned feasts are in the General Roman Calender, it is just that they are celebrated as a feast in Europe. Wouldn't it save really much work if you just live with the adendum "in Europe"?--Medusahead (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal: List of Roman Rite feasts
The General Roman Calendar is more than a list of feast days. It includes, among other things, a temporal cycle, a sanctoral cycle, and a ranking system. The list of feast days comprises the sanctoral cycle. Also, the General Roman Calendar is more than merely its current state as covered by this article: the calendar has undergone many revisions over the centuries, which current readers are left to piece together from the hatnote links to other articles (which, taken together, don't even cover all the post-Tridentine revisions to the calendar). This article, as it stands now, focuses almost exclusively on the sanctoral cycle of the current calendar. In addition to being too narrow in scope (both liturgically and historically), this article is also, paradoxically, too broad in scope, because about half of the article is about local variations to the calendar, which are not, properly speaking, "general" even though they build off of the general calendar. I therefore propose that we split off the list of feast days into a new article called List of Roman Rite feasts. I have proposed this name because: (1) it makes it clear that we're dealing with a list of feast days, pursuant to the rough RfC consensus above; and (2) the use of the term "Roman Rite" indicates that the feasts are not only from the general calendar but also the particular calendars of the Roman Rite. Because this split would result in the removal of most of this article's content as it now stands, I also intend to rewrite and greatly expand this article to give a broader perspective on the calendar's historical and liturgical aspects. If this proposal is agreeable, then I will also look at revising the other historical General Roman Calendar articles to correspond with the changes made here. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article should be split, but what about _General Roman Calendar_ and _Local calendars of the [Roman] Catholic Church_? The GRC article name could be modified to make it clear we are talking about one published in 1970 / by Paul IV. The local calendars article name could even replace the _calendar_ word with _proper_. Why? Because it is not a mere _list of feasts_, but it contains some additional liturgical metadata (rank, date, …). 7otto (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * List articles include metadata practically always (take List of living cardinals as one example); this wouldn't be any different. Because the particular calendars build off of the general calendar, I think it's important to have them in the same article, hence my suggestion for an article title that would encompass both. The lists of feasts contained in this article are not from the 1969 calendar of Paul VI; they represent the feast days of the current calendar. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * > List articles include metadata practically always


 * Although that weakens my argument, I still think that _calendar(s)_ is better due to the fact they are list of _dates_, albeit specific to a particular area (Universal Church, country, religious community).


 * > Because the particular calendars build off of the general calendar, I think it's important to have them in the same article


 * IMHO I don’t need to be. They can, but does not have to.


 * > The lists of **feasts**


 * I think that we should rather use _celebrations_, because (1) a _feast_ is a rank; (2) a celebration is a collective term for all ranks; and (3) it is less ambiguous.


 * > The lists of feasts contained in this article are not from the 1969 calendar of Paul VI; they represent the feast days of the current calendar.


 * That said, it is still called the General Roman Calendar promulgated by Paul VI, updated by later popes. I don’t see a problem with keeping the as it is. Of course, I understand you pursue to find a better article name to encompass the GRC and particular calendars alike. Then I would opt for _List of celebrations of the Roman Rite_. On the other hand, I start to like the idea to split the article to the GRC and particular calendars, or maybe even national, diocesan, religious calendars (three separate articles), because these are separate ‘levels’ which are built on top off the GRC. 7otto (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Any news on this? Is there a separate conversation to watch / subscribe to? 7otto (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you think about splitting off parts of this page into two new articles: "National calendars of the Roman Rite" and "Congregational calendars of the Roman Rite"? Jdcompguy (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean three articles in the end:
 * General Roman Calendar;
 * National calendars of the Roman Rite;
 * Congregational calendars of the Roman Rite.
 * Well, do you actually mean national calendars only? There is a more general term particular calendars, however, that usually includes any calendar that builds upon the GRC (e.g. continental [used only seldom, usually in some softwares], regional [e.g. Austria, Germany, Switzerland], national, diocesan, parish, religious calendars). If you mean it, I have no problem with that.
 * As for the congregational calendars, are you sure it it the right term to use? Though I understand it, I could not find it anywhere online (except in the meaning of the sense of protestant congregational churches). However, I could not religious calendar either, which I’d prefer to use, but as I am a non-native English speaker, I am not the one to decide.
 * As for the congregational calendars, are you sure it it the right term to use? Though I understand it, I could not find it anywhere online (except in the meaning of the sense of protestant congregational churches). However, I could not religious calendar either, which I’d prefer to use, but as I am a non-native English speaker, I am not the one to decide.
 * As for the congregational calendars, are you sure it it the right term to use? Though I understand it, I could not find it anywhere online (except in the meaning of the sense of protestant congregational churches). However, I could not religious calendar either, which I’d prefer to use, but as I am a non-native English speaker, I am not the one to decide.


 * Otherwise, if you (and others) really want to split the article, I won’t make any troubles (how could I? ;p), but do mention me whenever it goes live (or beta or whatever). I want to watch for any and all changes. Thanks in advance! :) 7otto (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @ et al.: went ahead with splitting off the article now located at National calendars of the Roman Rite, so I went ahead and followed suit with Institutional and societal calendars of the Roman Rite (the technically-correct title based on Canon Law, since "congregation" has a specific meaning that applies to only a few entries on that list, if any) and Personal jurisdiction calendars of the Roman Rite (for the ordinariates and prelatures). Jdcompguy (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jdcompguy, thanks for notifying me! 🙏 7otto (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jdcompguy, I think it would be useful to add to each article (the GRC + 3 articles split from it) a note about the other three articles. I see there are links in See also section (I added the links into the GRC), but I think that the ‘disambiguation’ at the beginning is a much better place (the GRC article starts this part with This article is about the calendar of liturgical events in the Catholic Church. For the calendars used in ancient Rome, see Roman calendar.). However, I have no idea how it is done.


 * Another thing, a bit OT: I think it might be a good idea to split even ‘continental’ calendars out of the national calendars. I know there is no such calendar as continental, however, some celebrations (maybe only some patronages) are celebration continent-wide and we sort of duplicate them accross all national calendars. If we list them all in one place (in a separate article), we could remove them from the national calendars (unless there is an additional change, like change of rank or date). It might be a good idea then to add a note to national calendars article about this. 7otto (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Consider removing canonisation level from links
I think the canonisation level (saint/blessed) in the links like Saint Casimir or Saints Perpetua and Felicity should be moved outside of the link unless it is part of a name.

For example:
 * Saint Casimir → Saint Casimir (I actually think that the word saint should not be part of the Saint Casimir article name, but it is just my opinion);
 * Saints Perpetua and Felicity → Saints Perpetua and Felicity;
 * Birth of Saint John the Baptist → Birth of Saint John the Baptist (no change, exact for the title of the referenced article).

See how I done this for Slovakia in National_calendars_of_the_Roman_Rite. If you disagree with me, I am happy to revert my changes in there, but note that even currently, we use both styles (links with and without canonisation level), therefore I suggest to define the rules and keep them. 7otto (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody have a 1973 or 1984 calendar?
In 1973 and 1984, there were 2 unusual occurrences which won't happen again until 2057. Does anybody have a calendar from either year? The occurrences are:

1. Corpus Christi fell on Thursday, June 21, which means that in the US, it would normally be transferred to Sunday, June 24. But that's the date of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. Both are solemnities. Was Corpus Christi not transferred to Sunday in those years? Or, if it was transferred, then was St. John the Baptist transferred to Saturday, June 23 or to Monday, June 25? Or some other day?

2. The Sacred Heart of Jesus fell on Friday, June 29, the usual date of St. Peter and Paul. Both are solemnities. Was one of the solemnities transferred to Thursday, June 28 or Saturday, June 30? What about in places where St. Peter and Paul is a holy day of obligation? I read somewhere that St. Peter and Paul was transferred to Sunday, July 1, but I have no idea if that's accurate or not. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb: The feasts of the Lord always take the trick on the feasts of the saints. However, the everlasting liturgical calendar of those years says for June 29 of both years: Sacred Heart of Jesus or Saint Peter and Paul. Strange enough.--Medusahead (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a rule of thumb, although in 2022, St. John the Baptist is transferred back to June 23, not forward to June 25. And in 2008, St. Joseph's Day was transferred back to Mar. 15, not forward to April 1.  Plus I don't think that the current system existed in 1973 nor 1984.  I think the rule of thumb works for common conflicts (such as Annunciation on a Sunday during Lent) but not for less common conflicts, which seem to be handled on an ad hoc basis.  I think the only way to find out would be for somebody to have a copy of a 1973 or 1984 calendar or Missal that was printed in that era.  Not an electronic calendar that calculates things based on rules that may or may not exist or may or may not be followed. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we capitalise titles like martyr in celebration names?
Just like the canonisation level (saint/blessed; as discussed in the MOS:HON section above), also the titles like martyr or priest should be written with uppercase initial letter when they are part of the celebration name. For example: Saint Francis Xavier, priest → Saint Francis Xavier, Priest. This is how it is written in the English translation of Roman Missal from 2011. I don’t want to make the change by myself, but when we do it, we need to make the change in all four articles (General Roman Calendar, National calendars of the Roman Rite, Institutional and societal calendars of the Roman Rite, Personal jurisdiction calendars of the Roman Rite). 7otto (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur that we should replicate the capitalization used in the official text when presenting the title of each feast day. I'm working on a revision of these pages that will incorporate this. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently, most of the titles are in lowercase (some are in uppercase). Is there any consensus on this?
 * I think we should create a list of rules how to write the celebration names (or the list of Roman Catholic celebrations on Wiki in general) in English, as many (most?) of the Wiki editors are not native English speakers and don’t even know how it is written in official English books. Most of the celebration names (in celebration lists other than GRC) are not even officially used in official English books.
 * Based on my observations, I suggest the following rules:
 * Canonisation level (saint or blessed) are always written with uppercase initial letter when refering to them with their name.
 * Titles (e.g. priest or martyr) are always written with uppercase initial letter when they are part of a celebration name.
 * Celebration rank (e.g. solemnity or feast) are alway written with uppercase initial letter(s) when they are part of a celebration name.
 * As for the third rule, I an not that sure about it, but it seems to be valid.
 * When there is a general consensus on this, I suggest to move it into some of the Wiki rules (like MOS or whatever). 7otto (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY
@Veverve user today removed essentially entire main content of this article on basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

While I understand that this article is seems to be against WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules, could we talk about it first, @Veverve? I don’t want to have edit wars with you.

Also, you simply deleted some parts (IMHO quite important notes/paragraphs) of article which were not (properly) cited. How about adding [citation needed] first like we can see in many, many articles on Wikipedia?

@Jdcompguy, what do you think? 7otto (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You must have very good reasons to oppose my removal, since I rely on a policy. However, you gave no argument here.
 * How about adding [citation needed] first like we can see in many, many articles on Wikipedia?: would it have changed anything? How long would I have to wait? This article has had unsourced parts for years. The end result would only be that I would have to wait longer before deleting those information. The longer unsourced parts remain on a WP article, the more risks there is of a WP:CITOGENESIS to happen. WP:BURDEN applies ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). Veverve (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

ATM, I have no good reasons to oppose your removal, however, I do think that at the very least the GRC (the list of celebrations) should be restored.

You seem to be quite knowledgable about all those Wikipedia rules; isn’t there any rule/condition under which the celebrations could be part of the article? IMHO that is the main part of the article without which the article loses most of its usefulness. 7otto (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @7oto The very long and unsourced list of celebrations falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not here to replace missals or breviaries. Veverve (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve, just a question: will you also remove lists of episodes of series like List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) on the basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY?

> Wikipedia is not here to replace missals or breviaries.

That is not the intent of the article. The article only lists all celebrations celebrated in the GRC (along with some metadata like date and rank), and it also includes some other, related information.

On the other hand, missals, breviaries and other liturgical books contain mostly prayers (generally speaking, in its widest sense) and when and how the particular prayer should be prayers (the rubrics). However, the article does not contain any prayers at all, only list of celebrations. 7otto (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @7oto This article is not a Stand-alone lists. Furthermore, none of those items were sourced. Veverve (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

So the issue, as I see it, lays in missing citations rather than in breaking WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Actually, after reading through Stand-alone lists I do think the GRC is a stand-alone list. Could you please state what make you think otherwise?

Here’s what I am about to do:


 * 1) So I’ll add a citation of Missale Romanum, ed. typ. tertia emmendata (2008) where one can find Calendarium Romanum Generale (pp105—116). That would base citation for all celebration without explicit citation.
 * 2) Add [{cn}] to celebrations changed since 2008.
 * 3) Find official decrees for the changes.

I want to finish points 1 and 2 this evening (CEST timezone). The third point needs some to get it done right, so I ask you to bear with me.

Do you agree to keep the list of celebrations after these changes? 7otto (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I oppose this article being a stand-alone list: the list clearly takes up too much space and does not help the reader. Feel free to create an article titled something along the lines of "Feasts in the 2008 edition of the Missale Romanum". Altough I am not sure if there would be no copyright problem by creating such an article. I strongly disadvise adding back unsourced material, unless you intend to source it within a week. Veverve (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not interested in creation of an article Feasts in the 2008 edition of the Missale Romanum". And I don’t think that any of the users (readers) of the article do.
 * The General Roman Calendar is not set hard into stone. Yes, the general rules does not change frequently (any major change creates a new revision of the GRC and the last one was made by Pope Paul IV in 1969), however, celebrations are inserted or altered from time to time (usual change is an inscription of a new celebration).
 * Now, official liturgical books does are not published after each change to the GRC occurs, therefore the GRC celebrations list in them are outdated quite soon.
 * Now, this article is about the General Roman Calendar (GRC being an official name of the calendar). We (the editors of the article) update the celebrations list after any change to the GRC is made by the Holy See.
 * > I oppose this article being a stand-alone list: the list clearly takes up too much space and does not help the reader.
 * Yes, the is list quite long. There are 210 celebrations inscribed into the GRC throughout the year. However, at any moment of time, it is a definite list. @Jdcompguy and I had some thoughts about conversion of the list into a table (potentially making it sortable) and thus improve the UX for the users, however, IMHO it is useful for all users who want to know what celebrations are actually celebrated in the GRC and thus inherited in particular calendars.
 * Therefore I disagree that the information is useless, however, I agree the form could be improved.
 * > I strongly disadvise adding back unsourced material, unless you intend to source it within a week.
 * May I ask who gives you the right to provide deadlines? Are you the Wikipedia publisher?
 * In order to be constructive, I tried to talk with you about your concerns about the article, I tried to be as polite as possible, however, you sort of behave like the owner of Wikipedia and try to censor anything that might be against your view of the Wikipedia policies. I understand and agree that the current version of the article (before you made the edits yesterday) is not perfect, however, you removed most of the article content without first discussing it and telling us your concerns. According to your user talk page, you do this quite a lot (I haven’t double-checked it anywhere).
 * In the end, I’ll do my best to follow your suggestion, however, I am not obliged to keep your deadline. 7otto (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * May I ask who gives you the right to provide deadlines? Are you the Wikipedia publisher? I was simply giving you a deadline in case you were planning to source those information; however, if you do not plan to do so and add those information back, I will simply remove them once again: WP:BURDEN, WP:V.
 * I will ignore your tea leaves reading of my talk page. Veverve (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * > May I ask who gives you the right to provide deadlines? Are you the Wikipedia publisher? I was simply giving you a deadline in case you were planning to source those information; however, if you do not plan to do so and add those information back, I will simply remove them once again: WP:BURDEN, WP:V.
 * I actually want to add citations ASAP, however, I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor, therefore I have some other duties (work, family, …) which might cause some delays …
 * If I didn’t plan changing the article to confirm the policies and thus keep the list of celebration in the article, I wouldn’t have this conversation with you.
 * You can remove them, however, asked politely asked you to give me some time. 210 celebrations (as you already stated) is a bit longer list and I need to check every one of them with Missale Romanum (2008) and fix any deviations from it. Also I’d like to fix the celebration names themselves in order to confirm with those used in Roman Missal (2011; English translation of the Latin original). I think that the end of the year 2022 is quite good estimate to fully cite all added/changed celebrations, as well as fix any celebration name issues.
 * > I will ignore your tea leaves reading of my talk page.
 * Sorry I said that, however, I really tried to be as polite as possible. Even now, I try to be open with you, as you have the chief censor of Wikipadia, but never mind, I simply want to keep the celebrations list in the artile, at all costs. 7otto (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, I did my best to check the list of celebrations.
 * I added a main citation source (Missale Romanum, ed. typ tertia emendata, 2008).
 * I verified all decrees of additions/changes, as well as added all the missing ones.
 * All celebrations are from Missale Romanum, ed. typ. tertia emendata, 2008, while celebration names are from Roman Missal, ed typ. tertia, 2011.
 * Additional, minor changes:
 * multiple optional celebrations occurring on a day are listed on separate lines;
 * canonisation levels (saint/blessed) are not part of links of persons.
 * All data in the celebrations list is cited, therefore I think it could be kept. Hope you’ll agree. 7otto (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to request a third-party opinion. To me, as per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the entire list should be removed. Wikipedia's goal is not to duplicate 11 pages of the General Roman Calendar as published by the Vatican (Calendarium Romanum Generale), with updates from WP users (WP:ONUS). What do you think? Veverve (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, I’ve noticed to add `1969` to multiple places. While I agree we want to be specific that this article is about the current revision of the GRC, how about changing the article title to General Roman Calendar of 1969 or something along the lines. As a side note, the link General Roman Calendar of 1969 in that hatnote should be changed to Mysterii Paschalis, however, first we probably should deal with this `1969` issue IMHO.
 * As I see it, this article is only about the latest revision, as it is implied in the hatnote starting with For historical forms of the General Roman Calendar. IMHO each revision should have a separate article, as other (historical) revisions are unchangable.
 * Even if we don’t change the article title, we should specify it once at the beginning of the article, not at multiple places.
 * I agree with you that the textual part of the article is of lesser quality, however, as for me, I don’t really care about the textual part (just to a certain extent), however, I still think that some of it is necessary.
 * Just to be clear: I am grateful that you tried to improve the quality of the article and make it abide the Wikipedia rules and policies. 7otto (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My problems are not with the text parts, but with the sections "List of celebrations inscribed in the 1969 GRC" and "Particular calendars (1969 ed.)" which are blatant violations of WP:NOTLIST and WP:NOTGUIDE; I respect the time and efforts you put into making those lists sourced (it must have been a very big undertaking), but I still oppose their presence.
 * I have improved the hatnote.
 * I think General Roman Calendar of 1969 redirecting to the document promulgating it is good. Of course, the two huge lists are enough to warrant being put into an own independent General Roman Calendar of 1969 article, but as I said I oppose those lists' very existence. Veverve (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t exactly follow you on why General Roman Calendar of 1969 redirection to Mysterii Paschalis makes sense to you, but okay.
 * > Of course, the two huge lists are enough to warrant being put into an own independent General Roman Calendar of 1969 article, but as I said I oppose those lists' very existence.
 * Well, I understand your opposition of these lists. Actually, this article (GRC 1969) is the only GRC revision article that contains the list of celebrations inscribed in it. I don’t plan or care to update the other articles to include similar celebrations list, however, I really care about this specific list.
 * I still want to know how the celebrations list could be kept in Wikipedia. However, the more I read through the related Wikipedia policies, the more I think that it is inevitable that the celebrations list will be removed from the article sooner or later.
 * Nonetheless, I don’t really think that the celebrations list is explicitly contrary to the Wikipedia rules and policies, thus I hope it won’t be removed. 7otto (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I somewhat read just your final paragraph of your previous comment. 🤦‍♂️
 * > My problems are not with the text parts, but with the sections "List of celebrations inscribed in the 1969 GRC" and "Particular calendars (1969 ed.)" which are blatant violations of WP:NOTLIST and WP:NOTGUIDE;
 * I don’t like the style of "Particular calendars (1969 ed.)" either. IMHO it could be edited that it would contain contain (more or less) to the following topics:
 * the celebrations inscribed in the GRC are inherited in the particular calendars (ISC, NC, PJC, DC, PC);
 * each type of particular calendar could be shortly described + link to the article that deals about them more specificly.
 * I don’t care if the rubrics and liturgical rules are removed from the article (other Wikipedia readers/editors might though), however, the current version of the article does not contain all the liturgical rules either, so I am for removing them altogether.
 * > I respect the time and efforts you put into making those lists sourced (it must have been a very big undertaking), but I still oppose their presence.
 * Yes, it takes much of my time and I consider it my ‘pet project’.
 * May I ask you why do you (personally) oppose their presence? I understand you like to provide some Wikipedia policies to back your opinion, however, in your opinion, what is wrong with this specific list of celebrations?
 * > I have improved the hatnote.
 * Thanks, I like it much more now! 😉 7otto (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Over the last several days, a user (Veverve) has been altering the wiki articles 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar Two people are trying the get the old articles back into order on the 5 and 6 of September. The first, Megalonzerg, says about the General Roman Calendar of 1960 "Undid revision 1108628746 by Veverve (talk) The purpose of this page is to show the 1960 Calendar of Feasts of the Church. Over several days, a "retired" user named Veverve has made a stack of changes, the first of which completely gutted the Calendar, making the page worthless. This same thing seems to have been done to other older Calendars. I am attempting to undo the radical damage. It seems I must do it in steps, starting with the last)", and The second, 7oto, says about the General Roman Calendar "Add a citation of Missale Romanum (ed. typ. tertia, reimpressio emendata) as the main source of the list of celebrations inscribed in the GRC. Change celebration names to names that are used in Roman Missal (English translation from 2011). Add citations of celebration additions and changes. Multiple optional celebrations occurring on a day are listed on separate lines. Canonisation levels (saint/blessed) are not part of links of persons." (Added 32,203 bytes included the January thru December dates) Now, however, Veverve is altering the website again. I DO NOT KNOW if he is a known editor, and it is a legimate user. Bob Tarver (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

At the request of, I took a look at that section. Speaking frankly, the citations are sufficient. However, the utility of such an extensive list is marginal; an inline external link might be more appropriate. I understand that this particular article has become something of a resource among those who use the calendar; this in of itself is not necessarily justification enough to retain the list in full. In my preferred world, there would be a section detailing only the most significant historic changes and some notable recent alterations, with the aforementioned external linking affording those who came to this webpage the resource they're looking for. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks for your feedback.
 * so, it seems we have a consensus to remove the sections. Therefore, I will remove them.
 * As for what is not related directly to editorial questions of this article, I will go to your talk page. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that I see the article as it currently stands, I realise that even with the lists removed, the 1969 section is quite long. Therefore, I will move this section in the General Roman Calendar of 1969 redirect, as 7oto suggested. Veverve (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, I see that the removal of the celebrations list is inevitable, unfortunately. I don’t agree, but accept your decision.
 * However, why did you kept (cited) celebrations lists in National calendars of the Roman Rite? They are quite similar to the GRC celebrations list, albeit they are split by countries. These are also published in Roman Missal translations of the particular country/language, albeit we removed the GRC celebrations from those lists. Same applies to other celebrations lists (Institutional and societal calendars of the Roman Rite, Personal jurisdiction calendars of the Roman Rite).
 * Just a note to everyone: in the near future I stop watching for changes in this article and all the articles mentioned above in this comment, as well as their talk pages. They lost (or will lose) the most important information to me and thus become unimportant to me. 7otto (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those articles would need to be nominated for deletion. I have removed what was unsourced for now, I will AfD them in a few days. Veverve (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, I’d like to ask you to add a link to the GRC (1969) celebrations list. I could that myself, however, I think you should do it.
 * Thanks in advance! ;) 7otto (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added it here. Veverve (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two editors are not a consensus, especially when two more oppose it, and "I don't find it useful" isn't a reason to delete it. The list of saints officially celebrated by one of the largest religions in the world is very notable, not to mention the cultural influence it's had on the Western world. It's no more a directory than a list of episodes or list of holidays celebrated in some country or a list of kings or presidents. It's a reference, which is what Wikipedia is. PaulGS (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @PaulGS, while I agree with, I don’t want to fight againt the Wikipedia rules and policies. That’s why I moved the GRC (1969) celebrations list to my GitLab repo with a plan to move all other celebrations lists (all GRC revisions, both general and particular calendar propers), albeit I have no ETA (contributors are welcome!). 7otto (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PaulGS: as I mentioned to you on another talk page, other users have approved. Veverve (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, I would say that your frequent claims are false that the feast days were all unsourced. They were all properly sourced to the WP:PRIMARY source, the calendar itself. There is no reason to have another source when the calendar itself was authoritative and definitive. Your claims of being unsourced are specious and not helpful to others in this debate. Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They clearly were not: there was no mention of an edition from where those dates were taken from, at the time I removed them. The 1969 edition of the GRC, as well as the Roman Missal and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, were mentioned in the summary and given as refs with no page numbers or chapter names; that was all there was. There was no mention that they were used as sources. Veverve (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23, while I don’t want to defend @Veverve, WP:BURDEN was just one of the reasons why the celebrations lists were (are being) removed. Yes, the list was cited, but the references needed to be updated/added in a few places (I did that in one of my revisions (there are some formatting issues, which I noticed only when I was porting the list to Markdown).
 * The main issue lays in WP:NOTLIST.
 * I still think the list could be re-added, however, I have no power over it and I simply lost enthusiasm to fight for it, thus I moved the GRC (1969) celebrations list to my GitLab repo (contributors welcome). I still need to move other celebrations lists (like national propers, etc). 7otto (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23, I have just noticed you removed my link to celebrations list in the GRC 1969 article on WP:ELNO grounds.
 * I have no idea why would that be prohibited by that policy. The policy in its first point says:
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page (see ).
 * Now file linked should be published on WP because:
 * it does provide unique resource, which the WP article would contain (actually it contained) unless Wikipedia allowed such lists (see WP:NOTLIST);
 * it does not merely repeat information that is already in the article;
 * if it could be in the article, it would be, but it can’t, as per WP rules and policies;
 * please don't add your usergen gitlab links here (the revision log text):
 * while I edited the list from the GRC article and provided sources for all celebrations, double-checked celebration names from English Roman Missal, I don’t think it can be considered user-generated more than any article on Wikipedia;
 * it is fully sourced (everything is cited and reference provided);
 * if the problem lays in using GitLab, then tell me where should I move it.
 * So, could you explain your removal please?
 * First I had to ‘fight’ with Veverve, now with you … I simply want the celebrations lists accessible from WP articles, one way or another. 7otto (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ann Teak, could you please read this talk page before undoing removal of celebrations list? While I agree with you, the Wikipedia policies are against such lists.
 * I expect that @Veverve or someone else undoes your revision soon. I don’t want argue, but discuss the situation.
 * @Veverve, could you add a note on this to the header of all related articles with a link to this talk section please? 7otto (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this talk page is only for this article - and as such discussions here should focus on the content of its article -, so I think it does not affect other pages. Veverve (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Veverve, while I understand your view point (each article has its own talk page), however, thjs affects all GRC articles (each revision, be it general calendars or particular ones), thus I expect many angry users in the coming weeks or months who want the celebrations lists back.
 * Also do you think that my celebrations list over atGitLab is against WP:ELNO, as @Elizium23 says? 7otto (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem, without the dates involved the General Roman Calendar of 1960 has, for instance, the Feast of Saints Cosmas and Damian on September 27 BUT accorded to the General Roman Calendar (current) the Feast of Saints Cosmas and Damian falls on September 26 ... I find that Wikipedia is confusing the readers with not having the dates ... Bob Tarver (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As others have said above, this article is well-sourced and the calendar lists are useful. Mass deletions make it less helpful to readers who want to compare lists of saints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Teak (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ann Teak, please edit war. Cureent consensus (myself excluded) is to remove them, thus one can ban you. 7otto (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * the Beef Wellington page is not useful to readers who want to know the recipe of this dish. But still, WP:NOTRECIPE. Veverve (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:LISTCRITERIA
A list of persons who are included as saints on the General Roman Calendar seems to be within LISTCRITERIA. Would it be appropriate for me to create an article entitled List of Persons Included as Saints on the General Roman Calendar and then organize them by chronological date? @Veverve Spartacus007 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that the list of saints and their associated commemoration dates belong in the respective, specific GRC articles and not elsewhere. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I would like to have the "old style" prior to the deletions of September, with the dates, reattached, and that goes for
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar
 * [See comments - "Here is the problem, without the dates involved the General Roman Calendar of 1960 has, for instance, the Feast of Saints Cosmas and Damian on September 27 BUT accorded to the General Roman Calendar (current) the Feast of Saints Cosmas and Damian falls on September 26 ... I find that Wikipedia is confusing the readers with not having the dates ... Bob Tarver (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)"] Bob Tarver (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my inclination too -- I think of these calendar articles as acceptable lists. But I don't want to add to the edit war that went on last week and I'm not sure what the community consensus is on this. Spartacus007 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that this means at least 3 users are definitely thinking about changing it back. I am a "new" user, so possibly someone else could change it back to what it once was on all 3 Calendars ... Bob Tarver (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * [This is responding to an email received by myself from user Dcheney] Great ... the articles have really been "gutted" and I do not know why ... it seems that we need to be back in the original articles ... I am a "new" user and would possibly get it wrong ... could you or another user edit the following articles, ESPECIALLY the Months/Dates? Thanks a lot!
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar [I think that this is fine, the Months/Dates are added back by the users Baokhang48812002, Ann Teak, 7oto, Jose Corregidor, and Elizium23]
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_calendar [revert to 18 May 2022 by the user Pbritti]
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954 [revert to 8 September 2022 by the user PaulGS]
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_Pope_Pius_XII [revert to 16 May 2022 by the user Ffffrr]
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960 [revert to 16 August 2022 by the user Baokhang48812002]
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1969 [users Elizium23 and Pbritti are comfortable with this, and see the "Mysterii_Paschalis" is included in the article. Bob Tarver (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Bob Tarver (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the requested reversions to the Tridentine calendar, Calendar of Pope Pius XII and Calendar of 1960.
 * The reasons given for deleting information from the Calendar of 1954 was a little different than that of the other calendars so I brought that up on the article's talk page. I'mm revert it next week if that's the consensus.
 * I don't entirely understand your note on the Calendar of 1969 -- are you saying it's fine as it is right now? Spartacus007 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spartacus007 for doing this ... it makes a lot more sense! As for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1969 it is fine as is (smile) Bob Tarver (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)