Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 4

Pope title in article names
Current Francis I is the Pope and King of Vatican City as well as the seated executive (CEO) of Holy See (a legal corporate person). Currently only one of these titles are mentioned in the article name. C.G.P. Grey explains the Pope with fascinating detail.

If "Pope" is a title rather than a commonly used first name it has no business being in the article name. Curently Queen Elizabeth II, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Emperor Akihito (It is exceptionally rude in Japanese culture to refer anyone by first name, unthinkable to refer the Emperor without the appropriate honorifics & titles), Abdullah (of Saudi Arabia) bin Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Saud1, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah1, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said1, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani1, King Mswati III1 or even Jesus does not have a title in their article.

Currently John Paul II is a redirect to Pope John Paul II and it should be the other way around per the custom seen elsewhere on the site as existing policy and customs suggest. Pope Francis should be moved and redirected to Francis (Pope) or Francis I. Francis I looks better IMHO as the title doesn't clutter the article name.


 * 1 : Absolute Monarchies.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue was recently discussed several times in detail (see above) and was closed per consensus. The administrator who closed the last discussion wrote in summary: "Consensus is against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Bede735 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not find the above discussion satisfactory. I have actually read it before posting this. The actual issue wasn't addressed. A naming convention for popes has not been established as far as I know. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The naming convention for popes has been established and provided in the guidance WP:NCCL. It states:
 * For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. For popes who are also saints, see Saints below. ...
 * This convention has been in place for years. The proposal was to change this convention by applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes—that was the actual issue—and this proposal was rejected by concensus. Bede735 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not remember a pope discussion that established the consensus you mentioned. All I see in archives is people disliking the pope title in article names and some support to that end. This isn't something that there had ever been an established convention in the past nor has it been established above. Current structure is not line with WP:NPOV and there is always room for more discussion. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Francis I would be wrong. Current pope doesn't have a roman numeral associated with his name. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * These exact issues were all discussed in great detail above in two threads (they're not in the archive) with the discussion closed with this closure summary: "Consensus is against changing the the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This does not apply to vast majority of popes. If the problem is disambiguation, there are ways around that used on the rest of the site. I do not know what you mean by "European sovereigns" but we avoid any kind of title in article names of people on the rest of the wiki as I have demonstrated with a few examples. Wikipedia does not abide by religious rules regardless of the religion and roman catholic popes are no more important than leaders of other religions/countries. Akihito is the current Japanese Emperor vast majority of other names I have mentioned is middle eastern hence not European. I do not see a sufficient reason for us to have a double standard on this matter. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Insisting that we need to use some Wikipedia-contrived designation for disambiguation instead of following real-world usage has a distinct air of Right great wrongs masquerading as Neutral point of view. I see no compelling reason to change existing usage. Choess (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia NOT Pope-pedia. There is a reason why we have general guidelines. Exceptions to the general guidelines should have a good reason not the other way around. This is the only instance of a general exception to site-wide guidelines on people tiles. I do not see the relevance of "Right great wrongs" to this situation. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not surprised; if you were sufficiently disinterested to understand its applicability, or sufficiently well-informed to base your positions on reliable sources rather than some video that struck your fancy on YouTube, you wouldn't be doing it. Anyway, you're proposing to break WP:COMMONNAME (in the real world, which we're supposed to be documenting, people distinguish Popes from other people of the same name and number by calling them "Pope so-and-so") and the "consistency" criterion for article naming to uphold a principle that isn't actually true. (Our entire suite of articles on the British peerage uses "title[s] in article names of people", for instance.) That's never going to get consensus, which is why the responses to your lengthy arguments have been short and relatively flip. Find an article to write, or go to an Orange Order meeting if you prefer to rant about Popes. Choess (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll just point to Queen Victoria, and the vast majority of Category:Japanese emperors, & there are others. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to MOS:SAINTS
It's evident from recent RMs at Talk:Saint Joseph, Talk:Saint Timothy, Talk:Saint Peter that the current guideline does not have the support of editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify: I had a quick look at the linked discussions and I couldn't see opposition to MOS:SAINTS - I may have missed it though. Please point out specifically where it is. What I see was a lot of argument about whether a particular Saint is known as "St. X" or not. Isn't that just applying the guideline, not disagreeing with it? DeCausa (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There were at least 2 comments saying "then MOS:SAINTS is wrong" "MOS:SAINTS needs to be changed" and saying that "WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over MOS:SAINTS" with discussion spread over 3 RMs I make approximate quotes because it's a bit difficult, but just going down the first RM I immediately meet 2:


 * Similar in the other RMs. e.g. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be changed to clarify the scope and meaning, and its relationship to WP:COMMONNAME. Also whether and how it applies when disambiguation is needed and "Saint Foo" seems to be the most appropriate alternative. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a change
Tell me how you like this, In ictu oculi, Johnbod, DeCausa, etc.? User:Red Slash (User talk:Red Slash) - 6 December 2013


 * I'm not sure this change relates to the central issue which is opposition to the basic MOS "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint"." The New Testament figures Peter, Joseph, Timothy are evidently not "only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint" " since they are not called "Saint" either in the NT or in 80% of Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with In ictu oculi. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do as well. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not typical guideline format maybe, but certainly an improvement. The idea that this page over-rides WP:COMMONNAME, which it doesn't, should also be addressed. Naturally I reject Iio's description of the issues. As he himself has complained above, his interpretation of this page has been consistently rejected by consensus in recent move debates he and others have started to remove "Saint", and it is better that the policy is clarified. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure who "lio" is in Johnbod's comment above, but I've been a party of several name change discussions and the suggested name change was not rejected due to concensus - the name change was rejected due to a LACK of concensus. This is a notable difference as John's statement implies that the attempts were shouted down. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod that the policy needs clarification. Ckruschke (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * It's In ictu oculi. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While this is more intelligible than the previous, the root problem remains that wp:Article titles (nb: "recognizable" isn't "most recognizable") does not trump wp:Neutral point of view which would require equal treatment of all beliefs, (including atheism). Wp:Use English is not code for "insert anglophone-demographic biased POV". At best Saint Joseph and Saint Peter are wp:Article titles. We should not avoid alternative article titles such as Joseph (Christian saint) which are simultaneously more informative and more neutral. Compare wp:PBUH to see how we should handle all beliefs. We should never have used the voice of the encyclopedia to imply that someone actually was a saint or a god (see Mercury (mythology) or Hanuman for examples), rather than making it clear that {group X} believes {entity Y} to be a {whatever}. We can be respectful of these beliefs without being advocates of them. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A saint is only someone who has been declared to be a saint by one or more churches; it is a neutral fact that this is so. That is not biased against atheists etc, to whom the concept is merely meaningless except as part of the person's "reception hisory", which with figures like Joseph is almost all we know about them anyway. Joseph is only notable as a Christian, and the issue we are discussing arises only when other forms of disambiguation don't work. We are not talking about changing Thomas More here. Though other religions sometimes use the concept of "saint", in English "Saint Foo" is only a Christian formulation, so disambiguating by "(Christian saint)" is overkill.    Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Saint Peter" and "Saint Joseph" are unambiguous and neutral expressions. Even atheists tell non-malicious jokes about "Saint Peter" as doorkeeper to heaven.  Use of the term "Saint Peter" implies neither belief nor unbelief.  Calling Saint Joseph "Joseph (Christian saint)" (an expression that fits Joseph of Cupertino much better) or even "Joseph of Nazareth" would not be common speech, and for that reason use of such terms would have non-neutral POV overtones unlike use of the common established "Saint Joseph".  Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with both John and Esoglou. You'd actually be INSERTING POV by using the naming convention Peter (christian saint). Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * It's clear reviewing Category:Christian_saints_by_denomination that only a very few such articles have used the "Saint" or "Pope" in the title, and indeed many of those could have done without, such as Paul VI, which presently is simply a redirect to Pope Paul VI, itself a rather blatant hagiography in need of revision.  LeadSongDog  come howl!  07:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the seemingly exceptionate policy on naming of church buildings? When did that occur? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)