Talk:PostVatican II Mass

[Untitied]
This article should be redirected to Mass of Paul VI. It was created as an attempt to circumvent the discussion on that article's talk page regarding a proposed rename. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It already is a redirect to Mass of Paul VI.
 * "Post-Vatican II Mass" is a redirect to "Mass of Paul VI", just as are "Pauline Mass", "Post-Tridentine Mass", "Novus Ordo Mass", "New Mass", "Novus Ordo", "Ordinary Form", "Ordinary form", "Novus Ordo Missae", "Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite", "Ordinary form of the Roman Rite", "Ordinary forms".
 * I'm sorry you think this particular redirect was a bad-faith attempt to circumvent a discussion on Talk:Mass of Paul VI. That page discussed the possible move of "Mass of Paul VI" to "Vatican II Mass", not to "Post-Vatican II Mass".
 * The name "Post-Vatican II Mass" has come into use, as far as I can tell, only since about when that form of the Roman-Rite Mass ceased in 2002 to be exclusively Paul VI's with the publication of John Paul II's version.
 * It is the name used by the New York Times, 26 May 2002, the National Catholic Register, 19 October 2006, Stephen E. Cavanaugh, Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments (Ignatius Press, 1 January 2011), the Catholic Herald, 30 May 2011, the Archdiocese of Baltimore's Catholic Review, 19 January 2012, John L. Allen Jr., The Catholic Church: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 3 March 2014), p. 114, Commonweal Magazine. 11 March 2015, Massimo Faggioli, Andrea Vicini (editors), 12 international scholars as authors, The Legacy of Vatican II (Paulist Press, 5 May 2015), pp. xv, 11, 15, 22, 25, 43, 73, 114, 122, 128, 163, 232, 418, 837, Paul Turner, Whose Mass Is It?: Why People Care So Much about the Catholic Liturgy (Liturgical Press, 11 December 2015), p. 3, Crux, 11 July 2016, the Times of Malta, 16 July 2016. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to make this argument is Talk:Mass of Paul VI. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your not denying the above facts, I regret your maintaining, even on reflection, your condemnation, "That's poor behavior. Cut it out." Bealtainemí (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Not printworthy?
Would User:PluniaZ please indicate why s/he judges, against the opinion of others, that a term that, as shown above, is in wide use in print (books and newspapers) is not "printworthy"?

While "printworthy" has in WP a more specific meaning, simple reverting is not the way to advance WP. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of this title has already been discussed
The use of this title has already been discussed and rejected by the community here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_of_Paul_VI#Requested_move_27_June_2019

Why are certain editors attempting to circumvent the community consensus by continuing to edit this page? --PluniaZ (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The link you give is to a proposal:
 * 1) to move the article "Mass of Paul VI" to
 * 2) "Vatican II Mass", the rejection of which I accepted due to a lack of reliable sources for its use.
 * What you are objecting to here is instead:
 * 1) a redirect to the unmoved article "Mass of Paul VI" from
 * 2) "Post-Vatican II Mass", a name for whose use there are abundant reliable sources.
 * Can you not see the difference, which has already been pointed out to you?
 * You can't deny that the use of this name is widespread, whether you wish to discuss it or instead to close your eyes to its existence.
 * Please do not accuse your fellow-Wikipedians of bad faith. WP:GF.  Bealtainemí (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read the guideline I linked in my last edit summary instead of just blindly reverting me, you'd realize that it is standard practice to categorize redirects as I did here and have done for hundreds of redirect. Please stop accusing others of circumventing consensus when you keep circumventing WP:RCAT Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)