Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of titular churches/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC).

List of titular churches

 * Nominator(s):  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of the titular churches assigned to Roman Catholic cardinals, past and present. I have attempted to incorporate advice from my previous nomination (List of living cardinals) into this one to improve it greatly, now meeting the FLC criteria. While there are several redlinks in the article, all of them have been duly interlanguage-linked to the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article. Comments and suggestions welcome.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a non-involved reader I do not understand what is the list supposed to cover, since the current introduction does a terrible job of explaining. It is full of jargon not easily understandable to a non-expert, and as such does not pass wp:FL?. It is possible that this is a case of wp:fork since it is unclear to me how much of the subject can be understood outside of reading the entire titular church article. Nergaal (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the mutual interest of bringing this article up to FL status, what exactly are the main sections or parts that you would like elaborated in this article? Perhaps we may come to a consensus about how best to improve it, an outcome that does not sound too technical nor too repetitive of other articles. If I was a bit rash above, I apologise.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly tried to point out where the list falls short on the jargon aspect, and I tried to rewrite the intro from a 3rd-person perspective. Feel free to rewrite what I left behind into a form that is both technically accurate and digestible to a non-expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now incorporated some improvements and clarifications into the article; hopefully you can find it more palatable. Further comments and suggestions welcome.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments, has satisfied your comments? Ravenpuff, I think it's a real shame that you haven't incorporated images of each of these churches in the article, seems like that would greatly enrich the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That could be something that I could add, though I'm not sure by how much it would inflate an already expansive table. There's already a Commons link at the bottom of the page. Also, I'm fairly sure that some churches don't have pictures existing on Wikimedia, especially the demolished suppressed ones.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Meh, the introduction is far more readable to a non-expert right now than it was before. Still feels a bit clunky to read (probably because it's written as a ESL writer), but it is probably passable. I don't have any strong pro or against opinion for this FLC. I personally prefer some kind of stats and/or map, but that is outside of FL? requirements. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a box to the right in the "Key to locations" section that can launch an interactive map to view or that can allow one to download the coordinates in the article. As for statistics, there is a paragraph in the lead on the current numbers. Are there any other statistics that you feel would be suitable for inclusion here?  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 09:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Map is nice, but shows how difficult would be to get a meaningful pic of the map. Side-question: why are oldest titles only from 1983? Is there something preventing getting a title before an age? And why is Santa Maria in Cosmedin still vacant? Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The patriarchates of Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinals are considered to be their titles" is unclear. How do they get to be cardinals, and the other 5 aren't? Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, many Roman churches are titular churches anyway; there are probably too many of them to properly display on a static map of the city. 1. I presume that you're looking at the "Since" column for the 1983 figure; the column shows when the cardinal was appointed to that title (the "Established" column shows when the title was first used as a titular church). Since there are no living cardinal priests who were created cardinals before then, the column only shows dates from 1983. 2. I have no idea of why Santa Maria in Cosmedin is still vacant. It is still officially listed as a titular church, though. 3. Eastern patriarchs are created cardinals in the same process as any other bishop or archbishop: the Pope decides. Currently, only three patriarchs of two patriarchates enjoy the privileges of a cardinal. If/when others are created cardinals, they will be added to the table like any other cardinal.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think 3) needs some kind of explanation in the list - unless I am missing it. Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase in question is now reworded to make it clearer.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 16:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If some other reviewer is fine with the potential forking issue, and with the copyediting in the list, I would be fine supporting this - looks quite a lot better than a the start. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments, Nice list, but there are a few aspects that are not used in featured lists. For example " this list includes 230 titular churches," should be "there are 230 titular churches", and "The status of certain churches as basilicas are also indicated." is confusing, and I'm not sure what it means, and if it refers to information in the list it should be as a note or in the table itself. Also the Key to Locations section should be incorporated into the list or legend itself, instead of an explanatory section prior to the list itself. A good table does not require the reader to constantly refer to a previous section explaining the table. Is there a way to incorporate this information into the list itself? Either by making the abbreviations more clear or by adding a note instead? Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Fixed "This list includes…" as suggested. 2. The statement on basilicas refers to the fact that certain entries in the table have "(basilica)" next to them; should it be replaced with something else to indicate this? 3. The "Key to locations" section is effectively a legend; it forms its own section because the list itself is split over multiple sections ("Suburbicarian dioceses" to "Suppressed deaconries"), to all of which the key applies. Adding Abbr tooltips to the tables could help, I suppose.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's better, and I can think of how to better incorporate the text of the "key" section into the list itself. Even though a lot of work has been put into this article, it still has more to go for an outsider. For example, what is "suppressed" mean? Is there a wikilink or a definition? Maybe some sections could use a one sentence description of what the table contains? There are also other instances of "in this table", "This section shows" which are all tautological and have been out of fashion for all featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a brief explanation of suppression in the lead and have removed tautologies as suggested. The descriptions of each table are also probably generally self-evident and don't require further explanation for clarification. How would you go about incorporating the key into the list sections, seamlessly?  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This nomination appears to have stalled out, after 3 months with no supports, and unless there's some movement soon will be closed. Have you seen Ravenpuff's question above? you closed your comments some time back; are you willing to support? -- Pres N  17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The list itself is technically sound. It just seems to use jargon from an ESL perspective, so if anybody is willing to copyedit that aspect it should be a fine FL. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to support as this time. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)




 * Support important topic that you have covered adequately and have resolved my concerns about verifiability and scope. Having looked over this again this morning, I'm prepared to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * " Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinal bishops are not assigned titles of suburbicarian dioceses." You should say whether Eastern Catholic priests can be second and third order cardinals and whether they are appointed to titular churches.
 * "On occasion, a titular church may be held in commendam ("in trust") to a cardinal who has been transferred to a different one." This is not referenced and not covered in the linked article in commendam.
 * " and the seven suburbicarian dioceses, as well as the three Eastern Catholic patriarch cardinals" I would delete as ungrammatical and repeating what is said above, apart from the numbers, which could be added to the text above.
 * " All locations in this article are situated in the Italian region of Lazio; those outside the city of Rome incorporate abbreviations in the second table." You say in the lead that they are all in Rome.
 * The sub-divisions are confusing. Do they refer to how close the church is to the centre of Rome? If so, you need to explain. What does "incorporate abbreviations in the second table" mean? in the fourth table on Suburbicarian dioceses?
 * Some abbreviations such as M. XV and XV are not explained.
 * This could be a good FL, but it is still some way off, especially on the locations. I would suggest deleting all references to subdivisions unless you can make them clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The subdivisions were added in response to an FLC comment above, that I should provide localities/coords for the entries in the article. I thus decided to include, for locations within the city of Rome (the municipality), the general name for the neighbourhood and its type of subdivision ("R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z.") and also the municipio ("M.") in which it is located, which spans all of those. They have been briefly outlined in the Key to locations section, the links in which users can use to find out more about the administrative system of Rome. In this article, however, they are only used for the purpose of locations.
 * The localities and coords are helpful, but the abbreviations for sub-division type and technical details such as the difference between Rome and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital are irrelevant to this article and mean nothing to English speaking readers. They are merely confusing and should be deleted. If you wish to add additional information, a separate column for the municipio together with the map in Administrative subdivision of Rome would be useful to visitors to Rome. However, this is only a suggestion as it would be a lot of work and is mostly covered in 'Map all coordinates'. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that some sort of differentiation is required to show that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are located outside of Rome; this could be done in the prose, while doing away with the "RM"/"RI" in the locations. Furthermore, the subdivision type can convey some information about its location within the city: "R." locations are in the city centre, followed by "Q." locations, etc. We could clarify this in the Key section above. An added benefit is that this identifies the locations as being situated in Rome. What do you think?  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Showing that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are outside Rome in prose would be better, and a symbol for city centre churches would be helpful. I do not see the point of the other symbols as they do not tell you what direction out of the centre they are in. I have also had second thoughts about the district names. Very few have articles in English Wikipedia, so unless there is a map you can add, they will not help readers. If you cannot find a map of districts, you might consider replacing the districts with the municipios, and you can then use the map in the Administrative subdivision article, and this will indicate to the reader who is visiting say, Aurelia, which churches are in the area. Of course, they are large areas, so the districts (if they are smaller) with a map would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now removed all references to municipi, as well as other distinguishing abbreviations in the Suburbicarian dioceses section, with clarification in the prose. The Key section now also includes a short description of the "R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z." abbreviations, now with a map to show things better. I kept the abbreviations for communicating some basic locational information and because they seem more complete with them. Also, I'm quite certain that we can presume that readers utilising this article to sight-see in Rome would have a sort of digital map to search up these locations in the table (which seem to be better found with the abbreviations). Do bear in mind that this article does not aim to list all churches in Rome; that's better a separate article of its own.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 06:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) I've included the phrase "Other Eastern Catholic cardinals are assigned titular churches, as standard." to clarify in this regard.
 * 2) Reference included.
 * 3) I've removed the phrase on patriarchates (something I forgot to remove earlier). The numbers seem to fit in with the statistics of that paragraph.
 * 4) In the second paragraph: "…suburbicarian diocese, in the vicinity of Rome". Some of the suburbicarians are located just outside the city boundaries but still within the same Italian region.
 * 5) As above, they are merely reflective of the local Roman administrative system that is used to locate churches. The suburbicarian dioceses table uses the abbreviations in the second table to indicate that they are outside of the city of Rome (see 4.). I suppose that I could explain the system used above, although such information would be merely supplementary in regards to the actual content of the article at hand.
 * 6) As above, these refer to a form of Roman administrative subdivision, explained and linked to in the Key to locations section, which are numbered using Roman numerals (I to XV).
 * Thanks for your comments.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It is a lot clearer with the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, stalled out again, so taking a look: we have two supports, one conditional support, and 2 closed comments. I'm not finding anything objectionable, and the source review passed, so I'm going to promote. -- Pres N  17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.