Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2021

Pope infoboxes
I come to request your input on whether we should include two fields in the infoboxes of popes. They, of course, use Infobox Christian leader and some of the papal articles include diocese = Diocese of Rome and see = Holy See. See, for example,. This is not uniform, but it seems like useful information - yes? And I think we should come to a uniform decision so that all articles may be treated equally. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is a useful thing to include, especially if we consider the scope of the infobox Christian leaders rather than popes specifically. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ad orientem

 * Recent revisions to this article may require attention by others. Elizium23 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Will have a look. Vikram Vincent 06:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

New legislation
Hi folks, it's a new year and we have a new law from Pope Francis. The main article is and we have activity happening in the following related articles: So please join in and at least watchlist these articles or contribute to the ongoing discussion... there is a lot of misinformation going through would-be "reliable sources" about what the change of one word hath wrought. Elizium23 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Basilian bishops?
I've noticed that there are many Eastern Catholic bishops in the category Order of Saint Basil the Great. Would it be more appropriate to create a category such as Category:Basilian bishops or Category:Order of Saint Basil bishops? The only issue is that the tree Category:Roman Catholic bishops by religious order makes it seem as if all the sub-Categories apply to Roman Catholic bishops, although Category:Redemptorist bishops in particular contains many Eastern Catholic bishops. I was unsure about this topic so I would like to have a discussion here first. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , couple of things. Most religious orders are divided according to sui iuris church, but there are exceptions. I am not sure about the details of the Order of St. Basil, but the EC orders may be separately governed. In any case, we should endeavour to keep EC bishops out of RC categories because the presence of a RC category implies the need for an EC parallel tree, however leafy that tree may become. Elizium23 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would not object if the religious orders were parented by both "RC bishops by religious order" and "EC bishops by religious order" because they're simply grandparents and not really displayed in the article anyway. We would sacrifice a little clarity and precision, but it would be convenient. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish to again register my distaste for the whole Catholic category hierarchy and reiterate my plea for it to die in a fire per WP:TNT. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are Eastern Catholic bishops such as Nil Lushchak and Milan Lach who belong to religious orders (Francisans and Jesuits respectfully) that are traditionally thought of as Roman Catholic. I was thinking that maybe the best option would be to move Category:Roman Catholic bishops by religious order to Category:Catholic bishops by religious order to clear things up (although that might also introduce to problem if Old Catholics or Anglo Catholics should be included). Either way that is probably a discussion that if it happens should probably be on a CFD rather than here. I was planning to see how this discussion goes though if anyone else has additional opinions/proposals. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , we could have three branches. One for RC bishops, one for EC bishops, and a shared one for both RC/EC bishops. Since, as I said, most religious orders are divided and unique among the EC, we could accurately categorize most people into EC and RC branches. Shared orders such as Jesuit, Franciscan, Benedictine, can go in the shared branch for categorization without prejudice. That would be an ideal solution within the framework we've already been dealt here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ligatures in the names of dioceses
Hi, I understand that Ecclesiastical Latin may use ligatures as standard, but WP:RS are another thing. Catholic-Hierarchy does not use them, and vatican.va does not use them. Elizium23 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume websites don't use them for technical reasons (namely, keyboards don't have Latin ligatures). Libreria Editrice Vaticana (which I take to be an authority on ecclesial Latin) uses them consistently in their published books (at least, in the books that I own). Jdcompguy (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The term isn't in dispute; the question is whether to use ligatures in the term ("Dioecesis" vs. "Diœcesis"). MOS:LIGATURE is rather clear: "Ligatures should be used in languages in which they are standard (hence Moreau's last words were clin d'œil is preferable to Moreau's last words were clin d'oeil)." I was applying the MOS based on the usage of the printed books of the sole present-day authority on ecclesial Latin, which is the Vatican. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have quoted you from WP:DIACRITICS which is also part of the guideline we're working with. The Vatican website includes Chinese, Arabic, and Polish; they don't seem to have trouble typing anything, and we are not here to second-guess a webmaster's Unicode proficiency but to reflect what is given in the preponderance of reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The use or non-use of a ligature is a stylistic variable. Unlike diacritics, which are different, and which can affect the meaning of the word in certain languages, ligatures do not affect the meaning or the content of the word. This is a language-level style issue, not a content issue, and therefore not a source issue. Ligatures, by definition, are stylized combinations of two letters. Therefore, it is not uncommon that the letters of those ligatures will be found separate, even in reliable sources, for the simple reason that typing separate letters is easier. The MOS example is the French phrase "clin d'œil." You will just as readily find "clin d'oeil"—which doesn't change the meaning—in reliable sources. In spite of this, MOS:LIGATURE says that the ligature version is preferred. And the Manual of Style is very clear on this point: on Wikipedia, ligatures should be used where standard. The Vatican is, as I said, the sole present-day authority on ecclesial Latin, and they are very particular about using ligatures in their published ecclesial Latin books. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have requested a 3rd Opinion per WP:3O and I agree to be bound and abide by the opinion given, if it is definitive. Elizium23 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: From wikipedia legibility guidelines: "Eye tracker studies support the theory that increasing complexity of shapes reduces legibility. ... Freestanding letters are easier to recognize than ones with adjacent elements; this is known as crowding effect." Because these pages are written in English and not in Latin, and because there doesn't seem to be a gain to adding ligatures other than aligning with ecclesiastical convention, we should give preference to English readability and not use ligatures other than words like piñata or cliché. DHHornfeldt (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in. The examples you give ("piñata" and "cliché") use diacritics, not ligatures. Do you understand the distinction between the two concepts, and are you familiar with how the MOS handles each? Jdcompguy (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A third party opinion is required to be neutral, not an expert. Fortunately, I don't need to be an expert to point out the Wikipedia Legibility page. It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legibility and discusses the "ability to distinguish one letter from the other." Please stick to the issues and not the user in an effort to reach consensus. DHHornfeldt (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asking if you were familiar with the relevant MOS because this is an MOS application issue, and I am trying to keep the discussion on-topic. The MOS expresses a preference for ligatures where appropriate. If you disagree with the MOS because of what a mainspace article says about legibility, that's fine, but this isn't the appropriate forum to argue for MOS changes. I am simply trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines as written. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Churches by century
There is an editor - Vami IV - currently overhauling Category:Churches by century. I would like more input on this large-scale process to form strong consensus to do the right thing. Please see the discussion at Talk:Old St. Peter's Basilica for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § RFC: sortkeys for church articles
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard § RFC: sortkeys for church articles. Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Succession boxes for auxiliary bishops and others
Auxiliary bishops and others without a line of succession: should they have succession boxes? (Yes/No) Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * No there is no single "office" for auxiliary bishops and they do not actually succeed one another, so creating a succession box for them conveys no good information and clutters up the article. It gives a false impression to the reader that the office is succeeded. Auxiliary bishops can be none or four or six in a diocese, who succeeds whom? Elizium23 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Take the Archdiocese of Toronto for example.  It is divided into four pastoral regions, each headed by an auxiliary bishop.  After Wayne Kirkpatrick (auxiliary responsible for the Northern Pastoral Region) was appointed to another diocese in December 2019 and consecrated in February 2020, Ivan Camilleri was appointed shortly thereafter in November 2020.  Once again, your Americentrism is showing …  I'm frankly not surprised that you are trying to impose that worldview on every biography re RC bishops you come across, regardless of where they come from and the geographical specifics of their dioceses. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Canon Law doesn't have "pastoral regions" while the Archdiocese of Los Angeles does; it's a local innovation and not something that confers a stable "office" to an aux. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Canon Law doesn't have "pastoral regions"" Wrong again.  Birmingham in Great Britain is also divided into regions (called "Areas" there).  And they clearly explain that "Under Church Law the Parishes are grouped into 18 Deaneries which themselves are grouped into three Areas - each being overseen by an Auxiliary Bishop responsible for the Area."  Or are they operating under a different church law? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And debunking your second false claim that this arrangement is "not something that confers a stable "office" to an aux.", the new auxiliary bishops of Birmingham were appointed on the same day that the resignation of the outgoing auxiliary bishop was accepted. Quite an orderly and stable succession to the objective eye … —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes – per my examples above. Some of the times the office is succeeded (e.g. Toronto), other times they are not.  For the latter situation, there is always the "vacant" parameter available.  Judging from Elizium23's edits (like this one to a 2.5 year sede vacante), I doubt whether he knows how or when to employ that parameter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No - While an Auxiliary Bishop is often requested by the ordinary, their appointment is by the Pope alone. The formal document of appointment never says anything about subdivisions within a diocese - it names their titular see and that they are an Auxiliary of where-ever. Dcheney (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so we do, fundamentally already have succession boxes for auxiliaries: their titular sees. I am not sure, but it may be customary that the same diocese gets the same pool of titulars as auxes are assigned. Elizium23 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It does happen sometimes (especially when the titular see has a relationship to the diocese), but typically Auxiliaries retire so the titular see of a previous Auxiliary may not be available yet. Dcheney (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Yes — provided it can be shown that the office has a stable line of succession through reliable sources. ~Gwennie &#128008;  ｟💬 📋｠ 00:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No I don't think a succession box is necessary as long as they're listed on the page for the titular see. That, I think, is both consistent and broadly applicable, while succession to a posting in a diocese would appear to be primarily a matter of local administration. Some diocesan appointments may be geographical while others might be subject- oriented, eg. Catholic Charities, Faith Formation, Pastoral Planning, etc. People can be shuffled between assignments, or the Ordinary may decide to reconfigure vicariates. It might also cause some confusion when individuals are translated from one diocese to another. Manannan67 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "as long as they're listed on the page for the titular see" – there lies the problem; most titular sees do not have their own article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. On the level of universal law, the position of auxiliary bishop in a given diocese is not a stable office with a line of succession. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Pastoral regions
Do pastoral regions exist under canon law? I'm not certain. The archdiocese of Los Angeles has them (§ 1.2.1.1 L.A. Archdiocesal Admin Handbook). In canon law, Ecclesiastical regions are something else; and in this targeted search I haven't found anything that fits the bill. This page discusses apostolic succession generally. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , not in universal law. Particular law is a whole other story. (Arch)bishops can legislate what they want. That won't affect how we denote auxiliaries here on Wikipedia.
 * The term Bloom is thinking of is "Deaneries". Deaneries exist under Canon Law and are used, for example, in my home diocese. The head of a deanery is a dean, also known as a vicar forane. This is not an episcopal vicar and not a vicar general. In Los Angeles, the auxes are all vicars general. Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * stop putting words into my mouth. The page from the Archdiocese of Birmingham in Great Britain] (which I already cited above) explains that deaneries and areas are covered by church law. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, pastoral regions do not exist under universal canon law. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, pastoral regions do not exist under universal canon law. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

New article opportunity

 * Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: sede vacante in succession boxes
Should sede vacante be indicated in bishops' succession boxes? How long does the vacancy need to last? Should the extraordinary nature of the vacancy be supported by reliable secondary sources? Elizium23 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes – per the Template:S-vac which provides a header replacement for "sedevacante" instead of merely "vacant". As well as the sede vacante article, which has a table for papal vacancy periods in excess of a year.  A vacancy of 2+ years seems fair to describe a see as vacant.  Using the term "extraordinary" to describe the nature of a vacancy in an article violates MOS:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No: sede vacante is usually only recognised in the public domain with papal vacancies. It is not notified to the faithful nor the public in the case of other dioceses. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No - sede vacante should not be indicated unless WP:RS indicate there was an extraordinary incident requiring an extended vacancy. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Short description proposal
I hereby propose a uniform short description for all Pope articles thus:
 * For bishops of Rome prior to 1054:
 * Nth bishop of Rome who reigned XXX–YYY [,venerated as a saint/blessed]
 * For bishops of Rome after 1054 (East-West schism)
 * Nth pope of the Catholic Church who reigned XXXX-YYYY [,venerated as a saint/blessed]
 * Overhauls of short description are in progress now. Please comment and have your voice heard. Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support standardizing short descriptions, as the current ones are arbitrary. However, I would replace "who reigned" with just "from" for brevity, and drop the ordinal. Shortdescs are for distinguishing similarly-named articles, and I suspect few people are going to be specifically looking for Clement, the the 183rd pope, without also knowing the date. You might be able to get away with "pope of the Catholic Church" → "Catholic pope" as well.
 * I also think that we should keep this open to exceptions in cases where there's something particularly notable about a particular pope. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the comments and suggestions made by Vahurzpu. Chewings72 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would oppose dropping "who reigned" due to the ambiguity inherent in "from" - are these birth-death dates? Elizium23 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no ambiguity if you immediately prior brought up them being pope/bishop of Rome... I can't see how "10th bishop of Rome from 1000–1040" could ever be read as their birth-death dates. Aza24 (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no ambiguity if you immediately prior brought up them being pope/bishop of Rome... I can't see how "10th bishop of Rome from 1000–1040" could ever be read as their birth-death dates. Aza24 (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with Aza24. Vikram Vincent 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

New disambiguation page

 * Please feel free to look around, kick the tires, take a test drive on one of ten links. Financing available (Creative Commons). Elizium23 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to look around, kick the tires, take a test drive on one of ten links. Financing available (Creative Commons). Elizium23 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Lists of Catholic popes to Category:Lists of popes?
Hi. I noticed that Category:Lists of Catholic popes is named differently from List of popes, which also is specifically about Catholic ones, and Pope has the primary topic as Catholic popes. Shouldn't this category be moved, or am I missing something? Thanks, DemonDays64 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , we should probably move it to List of Catholic popes in deference to the Copts, et. al. Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * but the Pope article refers specifically to the Catholic Popes, a pretty clear primary topic; the Pope is very prominent outside of just religion, e.g. he's always meeting world leaders. The other two lists of popes are of the ones in two movements with a total ~14 million people vs. about 1.3 billion baptized Catholics. I think the list article could be moved to just popes, probably? DemonDays64 (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton § Requested move 27 January 2021
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton § Requested move 27 January 2021. Elizium23 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Vatican City § Sovereign or not?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Vatican City § Sovereign or not?. Elizium23 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Which titles comes from which.
Interesting discussion at Pope Francis article. The question: Does being Bishop of Rome, make one Pope? Or is it the other way, being Pope makes one Bishop of Rome. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bishop of Rome. "Papa" is an informal title: literally "Daddy". This is like asking whether being ordained "Father" makes one a priest. Elizium23 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion that you've been involved with, btw :) Concerning the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Traditionalist Catholicism
Regarding Traditionalist Catholicism, I believe that its entries should be alphabetized for uniformity. Most of them already are. Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * please justify your rationale for non-alphabetizing random order. Elizium23 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church → Titles of Mary
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church → Titles of Mary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reassesment of Thomas (bishop of Finland)
Thomas (bishop of Finland), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cardinals
There are a lot of articles on cardinals referenced to Miranda's The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Looking today at Astorgio Agnensi I found that the FIU link was dead - last year they changed the URLs, and they are all now found here. I updated the Agnensi article, which ought, I would have thought, be at "Agnesi" since that is how the major refs have it, with Agnensi and Agensi (as in the illustration) as variants/redirects. Just a heads-up for editors in this area. Davidships (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For those more familiar with them, wouldn't this be a good case for creating a template? Dcheney (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Brelle
I recently created an article for Archbishop Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Brelle. He crowned Henri Christophe of Haiti. It is has the potential to be a great article. Best, Thriley (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Congregation of the Holy Cross bishops?
I believe that there are enough articles about bishops in Category:Congregation of Holy Cross to warrent creating a separate category for bishops of that religious order. The question I have is what name should the category have? Most of the similar categories have either a condensed name or a nickname, for example it is not the Category:Society of Jesus bishops, rather it is the Category:Jesuit bishops, etc. Is there any similar name that the congregation of the Holy Cross have or am I making a non-issue out of this? Thanks Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Holy Cross Fathers" is all I have, which isn't much better. Dcheney (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to go ahead and create Category:Congregation of Holy Cross bishops, as there is a similar category called Category:Congregation of Holy Cross cardinals. If anyone disagrees with the title of the article it can be nominated to be renamed or moved at CFD. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WACOM dates
Hi, At Talk:World Apostolic Congress on Mercy, I posted the calendar dates for World Apostolic Congress on Mercy starting with the first in 2008 at Rome. Because there are less than 30 watchers, I'm asking for help here. Specifically anyone willing to add those dates to the article, along with references that I found. My skill at adding references is pretty much zero, so I put some possible ones on that talk page. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of "ordination" template
Should the ordination template be used where applicable (bishops, popes)? Elizium23 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ordinations are three distinct ranks in the Catholic Church, and each one has a corresponding property in Wikidata. There is no way to "fake it" using the Infobox Christian leader template which does not have enough fields or the proper connections to Wikidata. Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I do have a question about "Episcopal succession" - can that be auto-filled from WikiData? I have to admit I'm curious to see if my website comes up as a source often for this template in the future ;-) Dcheney (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least in the interim. It may make more sense to move 's features into . Or at least duplicate them there; I suppose various notable ordained people are not necessarily leaders, and might be authors, etc., so the separate template may still need to exist. But it would be nice to not have additional "template cruft" in the article if a single infobox could be made to handle it, at bios that do use that infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the concern is having multiple boxes on a page, then the "module" parameter may be used to embed ordination inside Infobox Christian leader so they appear as one. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds sensible.Eccekevin (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it sounds sensible. Can we see how that would look, please? Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , User:Elizium23/sandbox Elizium23 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Elizium23. Frankly, it looks crammed in. What I like about it is that it is collapsed, which presumably would not be the case if the fields were duplicated the way SMcCandlish suggested. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed it, but what's the status of adding parameters to the Infobox Christian leader infobox? Eccekevin (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If it works inside module, I don't have any objection to doing it that way.


 * No to any kind of mandated use of any template across thousands of pages. Infoboxes have never been mandated either. No to the addition of information that does not appear (sourced) in the text. Yes to the use of the template when there is a lot of information about ordination to be presented and when the template makes that easy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we have adopted Catholic-Hierarchy as WP:RS, ordination, consecrator, and succession information is sourceable for just about anyone this side of Scipione Rebiba. Elizium23 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna has a good point; if the page isn't using infoboxes at all, this shouldn't be seen as an excuse to add an ordination-specific one. (Even if I think the "down with infoboxes" position is doomed in the long run, the current site-wide consensus is that they're optional for most things, especially bios, and their inclusion/exclusion is determined on an article-by-article basis).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Templates are used on a article-by-article basis, there is no reason to not use them as the above editor says. The word in the RFC is applicable, does not mean this is mandatory. Swordman97  talk to me  02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-Protestantism
See this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured content list, automatic updates?
I've noticed that the DYK section in the featured content list seems a little out of date. Would it be considered prudent to set up a bot to automatically update them like WP:WikiProject Christianity/Recognized Content have?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lacrimabili statu
A couple months back I made a page for Lacrimabili statu, which has a Spanish page, but not English. I have not create a new page before and thought some people with more experience could help. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Catholic Church and homosexuality
There is an RfC at Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality about what content should be included in a section about the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Your participation would be appreciated. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Laszlo Bathory
There is a name request to move article name Laszlo Bathory to László Báthory, who was the first translator of the Bible, into Hungarian on the subject's talkpage. Feel free to share your opinion. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Links to the Catechism
This article states that some links previously using Vatican.va URLs for the CCC may be dead. Veverve (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Vatican has done some reorganization on its web site recently, creating the need to update links to affected documents. The index of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with links to all sections, is currently here. Norm1979 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone that is familiar with such things should do a template for Catechism references so that such changes can easily be made in the future. (Sorry, beyond my abilities.) Dcheney (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is Template:CCC. It appears the look up table will need to be updated for the link functionality to work. –Zfish118⋉talk 00:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not gotten sufficiently far into the "guts" of Wikipedia to know how to use such features, but I'm not persuaded that what you propose won't be more work than would be worthwhile. The Vatican's web site is not set in concrete, but it is set in some very thick mud -- the content does not move very often.  Thus, it might be easier simply to update the links manually when they change when, in any case, somebody will have to update references created by people who don't know how to use this feature. Norm1979 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dioceses in categories meant for bishops
Hello folks, is adding categories of bishops to diocese pages (example.) I disagree with this idea, because categories of bishops are for biographies of bishops. Dioceses are not bishops; they often have lists of bishops, but that is tangential to their primary topic. Most all of our diocesan pages are not categorized as bishops already, so this is already the consensus to exclude; we would require overturning that consensus to include diocese articles in bishop categories. Please discuss. Elizium23 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The assertion that this is not standard practice is false. If we glance at Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Armagh (picked at random) we will note no less than 3 non-bishops sorted at the the top (helpfully in my opinion). This is not recent and is nothing to do with me: this old version of the Archdiocese of Armagh is categorised under archbishops, so there is no obvious consensus to exclude; far from it. Indeed it has been there since before 2013: diff. The Archbishop of Westminster likewise. Oculi (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You say there are 3 non-bishops, which is strictly true, but one of them is a page about the position itself, and one about a dispute directly related to the position, which are more appropriately categorized at the lower level than the diocese. Without taking a position about what is currently common practice, I come down on the side of not categorizing dioceses in bishop categories, as bishop categories are already inside diocese categories. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this clearly is an inherent limitation of the Wikipedia search mechanism that includes articles about an office in a category that ideally should limit itself to those who actually held that office throughout its history. However, there are also numerous instances in which a cleric who does not have episcopal character is "equivalent in law" to a diocesan bishop:  abbots of territorial abbacies typically receive the abbatial blessing (by the Rite of Blessing of an Abbot) rather than episcopal ordination while married ordinaries of the three personal ordinariates for former Anglicans and certain other prelates receive neither episcopal ordination nor the abbatial blessing.  Current norms, reprinted in the Ceremonial of Bishops, stipulate that all clerics who are "equivalent in law" to a diocesan bishop wear the same ecclesiastical attire and use the same pontifical insignia as a diocesan bishop.  The occasional inclusion of such individuals in a list or category that's ostensibly about bishops should not result in a change in our established practice.
 * It should also be noted that there's sometimes a history surrounding the title of a diocese. Here, the Diocese of Monterey in California is a prime example -- it's the second diocese to have that title, the first being the present Archdiocese of Los Angeles.  The best way to handle this situation seems to be (1) a head note with a link to the article about the original diocese under its present title coupled with (2) a more extensive explanation of the history of the name in the history section.  Of course, a category for Bishops of Monterrey in California inevitably will turn up bishops of both dioceses by that name. Norm1979 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholic sees of Great Britain
Having already done armorials for the Anglican sees, I am now moving on to the Catholic ones. It is going reasonably well so far but there are a lot of sees for which the necessary information is unavailable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you collaborated with (possibly more reachable on Commons)? He is the "King of Heraldry" around these parts. Elizium23 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:General Roman Calendar § MOS:HON
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:General Roman Calendar § MOS:HON. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Coat of Arms for Archdiocese of Anchorage-Juneau
Can somebody please obtain the coat of arms for the Archdiocese of Anchorage-Juneau that we can publish legally, upload it, and add it to the information box in the article on that archdiocese? Thank you in advance! Norm1979 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL
Various things such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (new archbishop has not been installed there yet, is still sede vacante and Beniamino Stella, please read the sources cited: Pope Francis has asked Cardinal Stella to remain in office until his successor takes over. Please observe WP:CRYSTAL and do not add speculative future information to articles until the hand-off actually occurs. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment is rather confusing, as the archdiocese being sede vacante is not consistent with the archbishop named to a position as head of a dicastery of the Roman Curia "remain[ing] in office" as archbishop. Canon 418 stipulates that the see of a transferred bishop does not become vacant until he assumes his new office, even though is power is reduced to that of a diocesan administrator.  However, there are also instances in which bishops have received collateral appointment as bishop of another diocese, creating a situation in which the two dioceses are united in the person of the bishop (ad personam episcopi).  However, there have been a few recent instances in which the pope has appointed a transferred bishop as apostolic administrator of his former diocese, so that he governs both dioceses until the new bishop of the former diocese takes over.
 * That said, the appointment of a diocesan bishop as the head of a dicastery of the Roman Curia has a somewhat different character than the transfer of a bishop from one diocese to another, as there is ample precedent for such appointments to be collateral with the governance of a diocese. Most notably, until the papacy of Saint John XXIII, the cardinals who held title to the suburicarian dioceses of the Roman province (and thus the rank of Cardinal Bishop in the College of Cardinals), all of whom served as prefects of dicasteries of the Roman Curia, really governed the respective suburicarian dioceses.  The present pope obviously could resurrect that situation temporarily if he wishes.
 * But in any case, it would be better to state the actual status of the bishop precisely than to state a contradiction. Norm1979 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion as I brought up two completely separate topics, but they do fall under the same policy. Pope Francis has made it abundantly clear that You will not continue in his office at Daejeon after he takes office as Prefect. But he has not yet actually taken office as prefect, and until that happens, he remains bishop of Daejeon, and Stella remains Prefect of the Congregation.
 * Advincula, on the other hand, remains archbishop of Capiz until his liturgical installation in Manila. That situation is quite run-of-the-mill and we go around and around with this situation every single time there is an appointment, and I'm personally quite tired of repeating myself. Elizium23 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, you are absolutely correct, and that is a policy with which I completely agree. In editing histories of bishops and dioceses of the United States, I have encountered several instances in which persons appointed as diocesan bishops never actually assumed the respective position -- and, in several cases, did not even receive episcopal ordination.  In such situations, the statement that Pope Genius appointed Fr. Schmedley Doolittle as Bishop of Timbuktu on whatever date is historical fact, but Fr. Doolittle never held either the office or the title of Bishop of Timbuktu, and thus cannot be included in the list of bishops of that diocese, nor can the title be used in the man's biographical article.  However, the title of Bishop Elect of Timbuktu would be legitimate for the period between the appointment and its definitive revocation or non-acceptance.  (And, just to be clear, these names are fictitious, intended for illustration only.)  Norm1979 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, you are absolutely correct, and that is a policy with which I completely agree. In editing histories of bishops and dioceses of the United States, I have encountered several instances in which persons appointed as diocesan bishops never actually assumed the respective position -- and, in several cases, did not even receive episcopal ordination.  In such situations, the statement that Pope Genius appointed Fr. Schmedley Doolittle as Bishop of Timbuktu on whatever date is historical fact, but Fr. Doolittle never held either the office or the title of Bishop of Timbuktu, and thus cannot be included in the list of bishops of that diocese, nor can the title be used in the man's biographical article.  However, the title of Bishop Elect of Timbuktu would be legitimate for the period between the appointment and its definitive revocation or non-acceptance.  (And, just to be clear, these names are fictitious, intended for illustration only.)  Norm1979 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Pre-schism popes and "Catholic Church"
What have we decided regarding pope articles up through 1054, regarding what to call the church they led? It seems to me that we agreed that prior to the East–West Schism, the united Catholic-Eastern-Orthodox church would be the "Christian Church", perhaps wikilinked to History of Christianity. Refresh my memory? Nothing turned up in a search of our archives. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unsure if there has been an established precedent or ruling. However, as seen in this article Catholic (term) the early Church Fathers referred to themselves as part of the Catholic Church. Present-day Eastern Christians still refer to themselves as "Catholics." So I think it is safe to say the pre-schisms bishop of Rome Pope led the Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanLeone (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can also say that they led the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, put all applicable ones in the infobox? Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think explicitly stating the bishop of Rome led those Eastern churches would be contentious. Admittedly I am no expert on the First Council of Nicaea or the Pentarchy. To my understanding, the respective bishops had full administrative control over their dioceses and several schisms happened among the churches you mentioned prior to 1054 ex. 451 A.D. Council of Chalcedon schism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It appears as though currently the all the pope's infoboxes just say Catholic Church and I do not see the need for that to change. SanLeone (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave it at "Catholic Church". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , the ancient oriental churches were isolated geographically and politically, from the Catholic Church and from one another, from very early Christian times. I don't see any way that one can regard any of them as part of the Catholic Church even in most of the millennium that preceded the Great Schism that detached the churches of the Orthodox Communion from the Catholic Church in 1054.  However, the whole European church seems to be known as the Catholic Church before the Great Schism.  Norm1979 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that pre-1054 popes led the Catholic Church is the most NPOV way to go about this. If you say that these popes were head of a "Christian Church" then you'd be, ironically, endorsing an overtly Catholic ecclesiology that the Eastern Orthodox don't share. Jdcompguy (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

 * 272 (rank)	Lacrimosa (Requiem)	15,577 (total)	502 (daily)	Stub (class)	Mid (importance)
 * 287	Richard R. Lavigne	14,986	483	Stub	Low
 * 118	Marie Laveau	34,088	1,099	Start	Low
 * 181	Evangelism	23,639	762	Start	High
 * 194	Dolores Hart	22,149	714	Start	Low
 * 195	Hans Scholl	22,089	712	Start	Mid
 * 199	Francisco and Jacinta Marto	21,919	707	Start	Mid
 * 218	May devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary	19,805	638	Start	Low
 * 220	Joseph Maskell	19,468	628	Start	Low
 * 231	Murder of Catherine Cesnik	18,744	604	Start	Low

WikiProject Catholicism/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is a poor methodology. Article class is rarely updated in accordance with actual status of the articles until they're close to WP:GA. I believe this is true of the majority of WikiProjects. These articles have few maintenance tags; many have a good number of putatively reliable sources.
 * Perhaps a bot writer could come up with something that counts the number and severity of maintenance tags and weights that along with the article class.
 * I think this is a good initiative in theory. Thanks for working on it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good initiative in theory. Thanks for working on it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good initiative in theory. Thanks for working on it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I didn't create this bot. I just discovered it and am passing along some interesting info. I like the idea of a better bot being made. I can see the use across Wikiprojects. Another criterion could be to check the daily views within a standard deviation to exclude those that spiked over a day.--Coin945 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Metropolitan

 * Should we begin uniformly using "Metropolitan" to refer to such archdioceses and archbishops? This editor has proposed that we do. In my opinion, the consensus is against this: article titles, categories, and prose do not refer to them as "Metropolitan" unless there is specific context for its relevance. And this reflects the WP:RS usage. I believe it is standard for the Eastern Orthodox to refer to Metropolitan Archbishops, but the Catholic Church is different. Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , to use my own archdiocese for purposes of illustration, both "Archdiocese of Boston" and "Metropolitan Archdiocese of Boston" are widely used outside of Wikipedia, the former being shorter but the latter being more precise and thus technically correct (except in the case of an archdiocese that is not a metropolitan see, such as the Archdiocese for the Military Services here in the States and the Archdiocese of Winnipeg in Canada). The titles of Wikipedia articles about metropolitan archdioceses seem to be standardized using the former (preceded by Roman Catholic to differentiate from present and potential future archdioceses of non-Catholic bodies), but standardization of references within the articles would be a major undertaking that clearly is not our most urgent priority.  Rather, we should focus on the content of the articles to ensure that they are both accurate and up to date rather than fretting over stylistic uses that are valid.  Norm1979 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , to use my own archdiocese for purposes of illustration, both "Archdiocese of Boston" and "Metropolitan Archdiocese of Boston" are widely used outside of Wikipedia, the former being shorter but the latter being more precise and thus technically correct (except in the case of an archdiocese that is not a metropolitan see, such as the Archdiocese for the Military Services here in the States and the Archdiocese of Winnipeg in Canada). The titles of Wikipedia articles about metropolitan archdioceses seem to be standardized using the former (preceded by Roman Catholic to differentiate from present and potential future archdioceses of non-Catholic bodies), but standardization of references within the articles would be a major undertaking that clearly is not our most urgent priority.  Rather, we should focus on the content of the articles to ensure that they are both accurate and up to date rather than fretting over stylistic uses that are valid.  Norm1979 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Tags placed

 * Tags placed. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Tags placed. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not the tags... Its Elizium23’s instance on removing them without providing sources. They have sworn a solemn oath that sources exist and I am WP:AGF. This is incredibly frustrating because I cannot find the sources they claim exist when I search for them but they won’t provide them. If Elizium23 could just provide sources the two of us could improve dozens of unsourced or poorly sourced articles, however they’re stonewalling me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't misgender me either. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did not mean to do that (I generally try to keep things gender neutral when editing but sometimes preconceived notions and biases slip out). Rather embarrassingly I also cannot find the part of my comment in which you are misgendered. If you point it out to me I can easily make the correction. Also what is your preferred gender identity? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gender-neutral is good, but must conform to proper grammar. It's grammatically wrong to use third person plural pronouns (they, them, their, etc.) in reference to a singular subject.  Unfortunately, the third person singular pronouns of the English language are gender-specific, with no inclusive case, so you need to know the subject's gender in order to know which pronoun to use.  There are two alternatives if you don't know the gender of the person to whom a pronoun refers:  (1) address the comment to the person, so the pronoun shifts to second person (you, your, etc.) or (2) reword the comment to eliminate the reliance on gender-specific pronouns.  The references to the Holy Spirit in the most recent (2011) official translation  of the Nicene Creed illustrate the latter approach, using the pronoun "who" (gender-neutral) rather than "he" or "she" (gender-specific), but it requires the right structure of the sentence.
 * Might I suggest you review singular they? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , one sees that misuse very often today, but my English teachers would have taken serious exception to it. Better to reword what you are saying.  Norm1979 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that is a misuse then I’d question the quality of your english teachers. We can’t all have amazing teachers, I’m sorry you got deprived but thats not really an excuse for insisting something is a misuse when you clearly know it isn't (that is unless you haven’t read the linked singular they). Praytell why are you hijacking this discussion with your ignorance? There must be an actual point other than embarrassing yourself. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you read the very article that you cite??? The following statement appears in the second paragraph thereof, with citations of three sources:  "Singular they was criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who considered it an error."  That view still reflects the highest standard of use of the English language.
 * For better or worse, I went to elementary school in the 1960's, when teaching standards were much higher than in subsequent years, especially in the area of English grammar and proper usage. The fact that someone would write an article advocating a misuse that has become widespread in the current day does not surprise me, but people who are "in the know" still regard it as wrong.  I get that there's a problem -- the English language lacks a set of third person singular pronouns for the case that's gender-inclusive.  Although accepted in times past, the use of the masculine pronouns for the inclusive case is problematic at best, the use of the gender-null pronouns (it, etc.) is utterly wrong, and inclusion of both pronouns (he or she, etc.), though technically correct, is awkward at best.  But this misuse of the plural pronouns is not any better, no matter how widespread.
 * Here, I'm reminded of what happened when the our nation's service academies were preparing to accept their first female students in the 1970's. A reporter, noting that the male students at the U. S. Naval Academy are called midshipmen, asked the Superintendent of the Naval Academy what the female students would be called.  The superintendent explained to the reporter that Midshipman is a rank in the U. S. Navy, and that the female students would hold the rank of Midshipman just like the male students.  The truth was that female recipients of NROTC scholarships had already held the rank of Midshipman in the United States Naval Reserve for a several years, so there was nothing novel about women holding the rank of Midshipman.  Norm1979 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of such a height in teaching standards, I have never come across research which supports that or even data which suggests something similar. You keep saying “misuse” when it is clearly commonly accepted and your own position is the fringe one, if you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS thats not going to fly. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues
Is it appropriate for Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to contain lengthy excerpts from sources affiliated with and/or published by the Catholic Church, with the specific aim of promoting the Church and its views, which claim that the Church opposes anti-LGBT discrimination and supports LGBT rights? Please join us on the article's talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , long excerpts from official church documents, or official translations thereof, may violate copyright laws. It's safer to summarize the content and provide a link to the source.  The summary could include short quotations, properly cited.
 * That said, there's also an issue of relying too heavily on primary sources. Anything that constitutes analysis of the content of an official document needs another ("secondary") source to conform to Wikipedia standards.  Norm1979 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Catholic vs Roman Catholic
The use of the term 'Roman' in the English language dates back to anti-Catholic England and was used as derogatory as 'Popish' to deem the Catholic Church as a beast of Rome rather than a universal institution. Indeed, it is not used in other languages of Catholic countries, and indeed it is used less frequently even today in the English speaking world.

Should 'Roman' be removed from pages such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lyon, since it is not the official name, nor is it used by Catholics?

For articles where there is conflict due to other Cahtolic dioceses, such as Diocese of Chicago, the 'Roman' Diocese should be renamed to the more appropriate 'Latin' Diocese, since that is the liturgical rite, or default to no qualifier at all.

Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the general usage has been that "Roman Catholic" denotes someone or something of the Latin Church, as opposed to "Syro-Malabar Catholic" or "Byzantine Catholic" of the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is lots of consensus and discussion behind this. See Talk:Catholic Church archives. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I mentioned that. But it is a misnomer in many ways. IN that case, it should be the 'Latin Archdiocese' of Chicago, not Roman. Let alone that many non-Latin Catholics make up the Archidiocese of Chicago, for example. Eccekevin (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that if you take a survey of the official websites and materials of dioceses, they self-identify as "Roman Catholic Diocese of XXX". Non-Latin Catholics are not members of the Archdiocese of Chicago and not under jurisdiction of the Archbishop. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends. Non-Latin Catholics can easily just attend a Latin Mass and never attend any of any other rite. And I just looked at the website of the AD of Chicago, and could not find any mention of the word Roman. In reality, it is only used in English and has its roots in Anglican anti-Catholicism, hence why it is used rarely nowadays. It is also incorrect since many Catholic institutions and individuals do not necessarily see themselves as Latin Catholics, but as Catholics.


 * As outlined in the page Roman Catholic (term), such term is rooted in anti-Catholicism, like its synonyms 'Popish Romish' and 'Romish Catholic', and was invented by Protestants to deny the idea that the Church of Rome had universal reach. Eccekevin (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? Please read about Reappropriation. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself recognizes that the correct term is the Catholic Church, and not Roman Catholic Church, since indeed the latter is a redirect. Eccekevin (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia recognizes that they are both correct and the more inclusive term is "Catholic Church" because it includes all 24 sui iuris Churches. "Roman Catholic" on Wikipedia is typically used for the Latin Church only, and it is for this and many other reasons that the article remains at "Catholic Church". The article can only be in one place at a time, and the redirects provide other, valid, names for it. There is nothing wrong with using "Roman Catholic Church" on Wikipedia. Please stop removing it. You are believing #fakenews. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTBROKEN, "Roman Catholic Church" is a valid link target, and your attempts to "remove redirect" are not appreciated Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But the onus is on you do explain why it should use a redirect instead of a direct link. For example, non-Enlgish church buildings, exist in countries where the term 'Roman Catholic' has never been used and the Catholic Church is the only church that is references as Catholic. Using the term Roman is unnecessary, imprecise, and unofficial. Eccekevin (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:IDHT WP:IDHT WP:IDHT Elizium23 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * let me start afresh. I am sorry if you see my edits as disruptive, they are all in good faith. I started by trying to start a discussion here. I am not your enemy. I am a contributor of this project and my goal is to enrich Wikipedia, particularly on this topic. You'll see in my history that I have been a productive user. I recognize and admire your work on Wikipedia and on this project in particular. I am sorry if I offended you. I truly believe that the term RC, which is anti-Catholic propaganda, has and is being misused. In particular, it is a term that solely exists in English because of Anglican and English protestant propaganda and I simply wanted to start a discussion on whether it should be indiscriminately used every time instead of the more accurate Catholic (in particular in countries where this term does not nor never existed). Once more, I believe we are friends, not enemies. Sorry if you see this as confrontational, I apologize for my role in making it so. Eccekevin (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I disagree completely with your assertion that "Roman Catholic" is a misnomer. The rite that we use is the Roman Rite, not the Latin Rite, because it originated in Rome, just as the Byzantine Rite is so-called because it originated in Byzantium.  Also, I have seen plenty of signs in front of parish churches and chanceries with the phrase "Roman Catholic" on them, and I have NEVER seen a sign in front of a church or chancery with the term "Latin Catholic" on it.  Thus, "Roman Catholic" is clearly the standard use, at least in the English-speaking world.  Norm1979 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC
Should "Roman Catholic" be changed to "Catholic", and in what cases? Elizium23 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As the user that gave start to this discussion, I'd like to lay out my thoughts. I'd like to thank Elizium23 for initiating this RfC. To begin with, it's useful to read the page Roman Catholic (term). This terms extist solely in English (which does not per se disqualifies it) but reminds us that it harbors views and sentiments of the Catholic Church that come from cultures that are not historically Catholic. In this sense, this term is an exonym. It is also important to remember that this is not an official term, and the Catholic Church as an institution describes itself as 'One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic' Church and those are the only official terms. Roman is indeed a post-Reformation adjective that was born in Protestant circles to deny the universality of the Church and make it local in character. Synonyms were Romish, Popish, Papist, etc... The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain the term "Roman Catholic Church", referring to the church only by names such as "Catholic Church".
 * That said, the term has a history of its own and as pointed out by Elizium23 it could be a case of Reappropriation.
 * So when should it be used on Wikipedia?
 * Dioceses? The standard right now it to call all Latin-rite Dioceses as 'Roman Catholic Diocese of X'. But this is technically incorrect. The Annuario Pontificio and all official publications omit any qualifier at all. Cupich is the Archbishop of Chicago, not the . Indeed, GCatholic, an excellent resource, uses the technical term of 'Matropolitan Archiocese of Chicago' while it has qualifier for non-Roman rite dioceses (Syro-Malabar Diocese of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/ztho2.htm). If you wanted to separate it from other Catholic dioceses with different rites, the technical term is Latin Archidiocese, not Roman Archdiocese, since it is a diocese part of the Latin Church.
 * Individuals: Most Catholics refers to themselves as such, without a qualifier. In particular, this is true for non-English speaking Catholics.
 * Institutions: Many institutions, such as schools, universities, or hospitals, are affiliated or owned by the Catholics Church. But not being themselves liturgical institutions, the distinction between Latin rites and Eastern rites is meaningless. Indeed the page List of Catholic universities and colleges in the United States is appropriately names, but many institutions it lists are called 'Roman Catholic'. In here the term Roman has no specific or technical term.
 * Church buildings: while Church buildings do have a liturgical rite, once again the 'Roman' is not the accurate term for such rite. Calling a church building, especially one not in the UK or USA, 'Roman Catholic' in incorrect and confusing. For example: the Italian San Giorgio in Braida, Verona is defined as having the denomination as: Roman Catholic. Not only is this not the technical term, but it is a redirect to the page Catholic Church. Why not skip the redirect and link directly to Catholic Church? Especially cause the term Roman has no meaning in Italian context.


 * A better way is, in my opinion, what other wikis due (for example the Spanish or Italian wikies - not coincidentally from Catholic countries): they have denomination: Catholic Church (or just Catholic) of Roman Rite, if needed. This is often omitted because it does need clarification, or because the diocesan attribution also covers it.
 * }
 * In common speech, the term Roman Catholic is used far less than it used to be, also owning to the emancipation of Catholics in America, and the fact that the terminology is less dictated by the Protestant majority.
 * Eccekevin (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct in some part interpreting the usage of the term. As such it is perhaps a method for enwiki to distance itself from the source; not a bad thing? It can be interesting to discuss this. I would like to add, it is not unique to English. | Here is just one example from the relatively small Catholic Church in Norway, where they take 5 to discuss the term, and not distancing themselves from the term, rather cement the meaning in history of the Catholic Church. (Reappropriation) As such it is interesting to document the history of the term to understand the Catholic Church relation to the term. Regarding the redirects, can you please provide the examples as that list article is quite long. I think I agree about Diocese, but please be more clear about the rites as it is quite technical Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and, people do sometimes get sloppy in normal conversation, but use in a forum such as this should be precise: "Roman Catholic" when referring to an entity (diocese, parish, etc.) or practice of the Roman Rite (Latin Church) and "Catholic" when referring to an entity or practice of the whole Catholic Church.  The distinction could be important in certain situations.  For example, some cities are sees of both a Roman Catholic diocese and a diocese of a sui juris ritual church.  These structures do evolve in due course, so it will spare us a LOT of pain down the road if we keep things differentiated in this way. There's another very important issue at stake here.  What happens if a body such as the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) or a similar body returns to the full communion of the Catholic Church as a sui juris church of a western rite?  The titles of its dioceses could be identical to the titles Roman Catholic dioceses, especially if its dioceses are renamed to conform to standard Catholic practice.  With such a development, the distinction between "Roman Catholic" and "Polish Catholic" (or whatever name such a body acquires in the reconciliation) will be critical for disambiguation.  We do ourselves a big favor by anticipating such possibilities. Norm1979 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment We should use Catholic. This is not "sloppy". This is the common usage. Even in academic circles. People refer to the "Catholic vote" and on and on. Here is a huge showing of how every discussion on the Catholic vote, Catholics in the US, and on and on and on uses Catholic. The opening point that many feel the insistence on adding "Roman" is just as pejorative as using the term "Popish" is also well taken. Catholic is what is used in common speech, in most sources, and should be what we use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've surveyed enough sources, because I can come up with a large crop of e.g. American dioceses which self-identify as "Roman Catholic". Pejorative, my foot! Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Catholic" refers to the Catholic Church in general, and "Roman Catholic" (in common parlance) refers to the (Roman Rite) Latin Church. "Roman Catholic" is a subset of "Catholic." If the context pertains to Roman Catholics specifically (e.g. dioceses), say "Roman Catholic." If the context pertains to Catholics generally, say "Catholic." It's not that hard! The only change worth discussing along these lines is whether to change "Roman Catholic" to "Latin Catholic," since the latter is more technically correct, though the former is more common. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In the context of, say, America, it makes no difference. In the context of England, Roman Catholic should be used, to differentiate from the Church of England - which also considers itself Catholic, though not Roman Catholic; but the English Church was Roman Catholic previously, but it severed ties with Rome.

Claims of "Roman Catholic" being pejorative are baseless. Just because England WAS anti-Catholic does not make the proper name for the Catholic Church pejorative.

There are plenty of Catholics that proudly call themselves Roman Catholic. As does the Church itself.

I cant help wondering if the real motivation behind these absurd claims of Roman Catholic being pejorative is actually to delegitimise other churches by asserting that the Roman church is the ONLY true 'Catholic' church and all other churches are false. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No the reason to make this statement is that it is by far the most common for to say Catholic. We should follow common use and this clearly is the common use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment" This topic rears its ugly head every couple of years. There is simply no justification for mass changes of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic"; any change needs to be carefully done to avoid creating unnecessary ambiguity. The idea that "Roman Catholic" is offensive or inappropriate does not hold water. Many, if not most, parishes and dioceses directly refer to themselves at "Roman Catholic", and systematically changing articles about these entities would be an editorial judgement directly at odds with the reliable sources about the diocese or parish. See Catholic or Roman Catholic? for a summary of this topic. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

When I am categorising clergy there is a well established heirarchy of Category:Italian Roman Catholic clergy which extends back to the 11th century. I am a humble categoriser and know little about church history. From a categorising point of view it makes sense to differentiate different churches. But does it make sense to take that back to the 3rd century? or shall I call these very ancient clergy something else?Rathfelder (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with . Roman Catholic is more common but vague in that it can mean the Roman Rite, a catholic in Rome, or in general an adherent of the Catholic Church. Roman Rite is the most common rite in the Latin Church. Both are fine but Latin Catholic is more technically correct. I think the question should ask "Should "Roman Catholic" be changed to "Latin Catholic"?Manabimasu (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This debate hinges on a simple question: Should we use “what is most correct” or should we use “what is most common”?  This is a question that goes back to the earliest days of WP… and we have almost always ended up favoring “common”… because that is how we best support readers looking for information.
 * As for this specific iteration of the debate (“Catholic” vs “Roman Catholic”)… we have discussed this several times previously as well, and consensus has always been to favor common usage. This means that both terms are allowed, and the determination of which to use depends on the specific article topic and the sources that discuss it. I see no new arguments that would overturn this previous consensus, and therefore Oppose this proposal. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Starting conversation again
Reopening what appears to be a slowed conversation in the light of recent revision activities I have been undertaking. For the sake of the average reader, I think the consensus of delineating Latin Church ecclesiastical territories as "Roman Catholic" is a more than just approach to differentiating them from similarly-named dioceses that might belong to an Anglican, Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, or other episcopal churches. However, in accordance with the developing trend towards distinguishing the Latin Church and the Roman Rite from other Christian matters within the text of articles, I have been gradually rephrasing and removing references to "Roman Catholic" in places where they are not standard official terms or could cause confusion (also removing the term "Latin rite," as this appears to be mostly a fad term that attained popularity in the 1990s and has gradually declined from official use). A list of articles I have targeted in this process can be found on my contributions pages. Additionally, discussion about particular jurisdictions that might regularly officially refer to themselves as "Roman Catholic" in their material but were erroneously addressed by my editing program can be discussed under the sections I am placing on the relevant talk pages. Thanks to all. For what its worth, my opinion is that "Roman Catholic" is still a regular enough term in American and British English, but ought be avoided within the text (not titles) of articles that deal directly with internal Church structures, individuals, and practices of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome (currently Pope Francis). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what, I change my mind. Mostly, I think the term "Roman Catholic" ought be avoided in text because it is often simply contextually incorrect, no matter how common it is. Unless a diocese, order, or object is commonly referred to as "Roman Catholic" or refers to itself as "Roman Catholic", there's no reason to use a somewhat antiquated and imprecise term. The only way this conversation will finally end in a firm, unbending consensus is if we take somewhat firm stands on the matter. Furthermore, conversation should be made about applying such clarifying titles to Anglican diocese in the UK, as generally they are simply referred to as "Diocese of X", which seems like a minor incongruence that could be interpreted as implying a greater legitimacy to these jurisdictions over their "Roman Catholic" compatriots. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Luigi Bellotti
Please see the proposal that the entry for the archbishop and diplomat Luigi Bellotti be deleted. The info was posted at the Christianity Wikiproject, but I don't believe that Wikiproject Catholicism has a comparable space for notifying interested parties about such a proposed deletion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Should This Be Deleted
Should this comment on the project page (in the "Future articles for consideration" section) be deleted as it is not in the talk page (and is no longer relevant)?

CosmicLycanroc (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been 12 years and it's not terribly relevant. I say it can go. Wonder what the more senior members think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for review
In order to trim the article "Canadian Indian residential school gravesites," the section on the recent church burnings was truncated. In order to sufficiently cover this topic, a new article will be created. Since the article covers Catholic churches being burned, I feel is appropriate to have this Wikiproject's members help. The current draft can be found here: User:Pbritti/sandbox/2021 Canadian church burnings. Please have at it; I intend to publish the article within 24 hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Primrose
Having recently created a stub on Patrick Primrose that has been demoted to a draft, I'd appreciate some feedback on the draft if anyone has the time. I'm adding further information I find relevant as I find the opportunity. NoelveNoelve (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

... and literally as I write that, its magically accepted as an article. So, now... would appreciate feedback on the... article. NoelveNoelve (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What is "Donata"?
While doing cleanup, Catholic orphan articles, I found the word "Donata". I added redlink at Ursula de Jesus article as "Donata (Catholic)" as plain Donata is a location. If anyone here can help, please do so. I have already done a few online searches & not find any Catholic definition. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a chapter on them here. Some sort of church servant in the Spanish colonies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Input needed at category deletion discussions
Category:Jewish composers and Category:Catholic composers are up for deletion. All opinions welcome at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 27.4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate bio articles - need to be combined
Today while working on Orpan articles, I found these two articles about the same person. Since I have never done this & is beyond my skill, I'm posting here and asking for interested editor to take on the task of choosing one, combine, delete the other. I have no preference. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lorenz Grässel, article created by User:JASpencer 24 July 2010‎
 * Dominic Laurence Graessel created by User:RFD 30 April 2013‎; infobox, succession box, more
 * ✅ -went with Dominic, as that's what the Archdiocese appears to use. (Also, check out WP:PROMERGE if you're interested), Cheers. Manannan67 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate bio articles - found 2 more
While doing Orphan Catholicism articles, I found these.
 * Hans Ludwig Engel - class Stub
 * Ludwig Engel - class Start

At Talk:Hans Ludwig Engel, user Zorakov (redlink) posted about the duplicates, so I reposted that info. at the Talk Ludwig Engel. And thought to share here too. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joan of Arc
I have nominated Joan of Arc 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Bishops
Hi, there is an ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide concerning the notability of bishops, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I plan to reassess the GA Marcel Lefebvre
See my section at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard. Veverve (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

GAR for Marcel Lefebvre
Marcel Lefebvre has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Veverve (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

GAR for Opus Dei
Opus Dei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂  Talk  16:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Revising the whole Missionary Families of Christ article
Having been a member of that group since 2010 (back when it was CFC-FFL), I've been really bothered by the lazy copy-and-paste information on that article. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia editing, and I'd love to get some guidance/mentoring or possibly putting together a team to reassess this mess. Aerikos (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Standardizing diocesan articles
The standardized template for Catholic diocesan articles has not been substantially updated since 2007. It's time for a bit of revision and improved cohesion. In July this year I standardized the ledes of many U.S. Latin diocesan articles, as well as some others. I'm currently applying this standard worldwide. The alterations are as follows:


 * Removing the leading modifier "Roman Catholic" unless officially used and/or the diocese overlaps with a major non-Catholic jurisdiction (not including Eastern Catholic), even if the other denomination's jurisdiction has a sufficiently different name. All dioceses in England can reasonably retain "Roman Catholic" for this reason, as there are Church of England jurisdictions with corresponding territory (including "Anglican Diocese of XXXX" as their title is a discussion for another day)
 * Formatting the first sentence to read "The (Roman Catholic) Diocese of XXXX is a Latin Church ecclesiastical territory or diocese of the Catholic Church in XXXX."
 * Removing terms "Latin Rite" and "Roman Rite" when they refer to the sui iuris church to which the diocese belongs, as these terms are primarily liturgical rather than jurisdictional.
 * When applicable, appending details regarding metropolitans, suffragans, and ecclesiastical provinces.
 * Adding "Latin Church" to infobox when not already present
 * Removing uncited and less important information from lede (such as diocesan mission statements).

These changes should not be in violation of any MOS and were developed after several interactions with fellow editors who had questions or disagreements regarding this standardization. We should strive to have a standard format for such articles, with the necessary exceptions for jurisdictions that possess notable qualities (like Latin patriarchates, etc.). Follow up with criticisms or suggestions below. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding saints and others
Sorry, not being Catholic myself I would appreciate some clarifications on the following questions: Thanks for any clarification. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Do Servants of God and Venerables have official feast days? From quick parsings of google results it seems like only Blesseds and Saints have these (but I could mistaken).
 * 2) Are there official or verifiable sources for the "attributes" of saints, blesseds, etc, specifically for filling in the "attributes" parameter in the saints infobox?
 * 3) Is it correct to say that all of these groups (Servants of God, Venerables, Blesseds, Saints) are venerated, or is it just a subset (eg, only Blessed and Saints)?


 * , the practice of the Catholic Church regarding liturgical commemorations of saints is particularly complex because it involves an interaction of general and proper liturgical calendars -- and this is true of the sui juris ritual churches of the various non-Roman rites as well as of the Roman (or Latin) Rite. Here are the principles that govern it.  It's important to remember that the formal commemoration of a saint in the liturgical calendar is a calling to mind of someone whose life exemplified Christian values in a manner worthy of emulation, and nothing more.  It definitively is NOT worship of that individual.
 * The commemoration of a saint normally takes place on the day of his or her entrance into heaven (that is, the anniversary of his or her mortal death).
 * Only saints that are of universal importance have commemorations in the general calendar, and the rank of the commemoration (Solemnity, Feast, Obligatory Memorial, or Optional Memorial) depends upon the relative importance of the saint.
 * The proper calendar of a country or a diocese may add commemorations of saints that are of local importance, and also may elevate the rank of commemorations of saints that appear in the general calendar that are of greater local importance. Likewise, the proper calendar of a religious order, or a unit thereof, may add commemorations of saints that are of importance to the order, and also may elevate the rank of commemorations of saints that appear in the general calendar that are of particular importance to the order.
 * A Table of Liturgical Precedence determines what happens when a celebration in the general calendar and a different celebration in a proper calendar fall on the same day. In general, commemorations with the rank of Solemnity transfer to the next available day, while commemorations of lesser rank do not occur in that year.
 * As to the attributes of each saint, the liturgical calendar gives a brief synopsis (for example, "Bishop and Doctor" for St. Augustine of Hippo and "Repentant Sinner" for St. Mary of Magdala).
 * I have seen the title "Servant of God" only in the decrees related to canonization promulgated by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. I'm not aware of any formal conferral thereof.  Norm1979 (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The attributes are not exactly a church matter, but refer to the traditional objects associated with a particular saint in art, to help identification. None of the examples given above are attributes, but rather short descriptions (I hope infoboxes are not being filled with this sort of stuff). The best sources for the attributes are books on art history. Augustine of Hippo's (unreferenced) attributes per his infobox are: "Child, dove, pen, shell, pierced heart, holding book with a small church, pectoral cross, crozier, miter".  Personally I'd drop several of these.  One of Mary Magdalene's attributes (which her infobox doesn't mention, but the article illustrates several times) is being naked, her body more or less concealed by her very long hair.   Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. I want to provide a little more context for part of the query - currently the Template:Infobox saint is used for saints, blesseds, venerables, and servants of God. In the infobox are parameters for a feast day and for attributes. Often this information is provided without sources so that I can't tell if this is just wishfully thinking of an overzealous editor or whether it is a verifiable fact.
 * For example with the feast days, I am aware that there are liturgical calendars such as the General Roman Calendar. However, I only see saints and blesseds on that and other calendar. While not all saints or blesseds may have a feast day, is it correct to say that no venerables or servants of God have feast days? As noted, the attribute field can sometimes become cluttered with material that is honestly unverifiable and many times appears to be at the whim of an overzealous editor. There is a certain LTA sockpuppeteer that has been particularly active in persistently adding to both these fields across several articles. A good source for both these fields would help to filter the whims from the valid statements. Thanks again for the feedback. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , fixing this in the template and all of the articles about saints obviously would be a major effort, but wouldn't symbols be a more accurate term than attributes if that's what's meant? Norm1979 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, "attribute" is the precise and correct term - "symbol" is different & ambiguous. That (as was evident in your previous comment) you don't understand the term doesn't mean that many other people are in the same position. Most saint articles in fact seem to have at least the correct ones, often plus too many others, as at Augustine (see last comment). Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , your assertion that others are not in the same position as me with respect to misunderstanding is absolutely correct, albeit probably not in the way that you suggest. By way of background, my second master's degree is a Master of Theological Studies from a school of theology that's also a national seminary here in the States, though study of the saints was not exactly a major subject area for that degree.  If I'm confused by ecclesial terminology, the average person in the pew probably is even more confused by it than I am.
 * In any case, some "attributes" of saints might well have local or regional use, and not be as recognized elsewhere. Thus, I would be careful about removing something that another contributor has incorporated into the listing.  JTOL, is there some way to modify the listing to reflect regional use thereof?  Norm1979 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that's much of an issue. In the edit I made to Augustine after the above, I removed "pen" and "holding book with a small church" as non-specific - any author-saint will often be shown writing, and the church models normally denote the dedication to whatever saint is shown of the church or even chapel the work was done for. If there are any significant local attributes, they could be added with a reference. A crozier and mitre may be carried by any bishop-saint too, but Augustine tpically has these.  The dove may be a confusion with Gregory the Great, for whom it is a common attribute, and the shell I think relates to the dream with the boy and the sea, and is not used on its own.  So I will look at my two good references, and then not be cautious.  Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are succinct answers to your questions. All four groups may be venerated privately (question #3), but only Blesseds and Saints are venerated publicly, that is, in the liturgy, by being given a feast day (question #1). Blesseds may have feast days on local calendars, and only Saints may have feast days on the General Roman Calendar. There is no official list of saint attributes (question #2); attributes develop organically according to artistic custom. You can find attributes listed in reliable sources (e.g. saint biography books), but it's not "official" in the sense that the attributes are not determined by church authority. Jdcompguy (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of these:


 * Hall, James, Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art, 1996 (2nd edn.), John Murray, ISBN 0719541476
 * Daniel, Howard, Encyclopedia of Themes and Subjects in Painting, 1971, Thames and Hudson, ISBN 0500181144

- give attributes for the main saints at least; unfortunately they differ somewhat over Augustine. I'll trim & ref over there. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

query: Why does a "Servant of God" get a saints infobox? All that means is that someone was able to persuade a bishop to allow a particular cause to commence an investigatory process (one assumes at the proponents' expense). It doesn't necessarily mean that it's going any further. At least "Venerable" has an official recognition of "heroic virtue". I think use of the saint infobox is a bit premature, and adds a degree of credibility that may not as yet be warranted, particularly if the editors are connected to the group seeking to promote the cause. Manannan67 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes a bit of sense as those declared "Servants of God" are generally recognized by the whole of the Catholic Church to have attained a certain title. It is absolutely a lower earthly title than canonization, but still one meriting mention, particularly if the individual is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet another merge proposal
See Talk:Catholicity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Fr. John J. Crowley
I recently created a draft for Fr. John J. Crowley. He was an important figure in the California water wars. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indult Catholic (2nd nomination)
See discussion here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation links
Would anyone be able to help fix the links to disambiguation pages which fall within the area of this wikiproject? Examples are at: Any help appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 16:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Disambig fix list for Catholic catechism
 * Disambig fix list for Catholic doctrine
 * Disambig fix list for Polish Catholic

Anniversary of Pope Benedict XV's death
This January will mark the 100th anniversary of the death of Pope Benedict XV. He is well remembered in particular for his unsuccessful efforts to bring an end to the First World War. He is also the namesake of Benedict XVI. Not sure if there is any interest in doing anything to mark the ocassion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Liberation theology"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liberation theology, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Santacruz ⁂  Please ping me!  12:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Papal infobox content
It's time (once & for all) that we decide what we want & don't want in the infoboxes of the popes. Up to Pope Innocent III, we've got variations of We had the latter two in the infoboxes from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis, which I've since removed. We have none of the three entries in all the papal bio infoboxes (I removed a few), between Innocent III & Pius XII. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC) So, can we once & for all come to a consensus on this matter? Shall we do the following to the infoboxes
 * Church = Catholic Church (or a variation of it)
 * Diocese = Rome (or a variation of it)
 * See = Holy See.
 * A) Add in the -Church-
 * B) Add in the -Diocese-
 * C) Add in the -See-
 * D) Include all three
 * E) Exclude all three

Survey

 * E - Let's not crowd up the top of the papal bio infoboxes, with redundant entries. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E. It's clutter. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E Per above. Would just be redundant clutter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A (invited by the bot) Include "Roman Catholic Church" to clarify from the related ones. The other two are just clutter.North8000 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * B - include Dicocese, exclude Church and See. Diocese is the most general term: the RC church has several dioceses of which one an apostolic see and is the seat of the Pope. From a data-science perspective, this is the most informative of the three properties. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E – Perhaps including "Catholic Church" to distinguish from Coptic papacy but that shouldn't an issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E per GoodDay's comment. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E It's clutter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A BCD are just clutter in the infobox, but I think it wouldn't be clutter to have A in there. If not A, I would vote E over B or C Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E Agree, it is unnecessary clutter.Dcheney (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E Keep it concise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A - Add in Catholic Church, so there is no room for confusion between the Roman pope and various eastern popes. Skimming the infobox should make it clear which church he led. "Pope" at the top might also be wikilinked; the template would need to be modified, as adding the wikilink breaks the papal formatting. –Zfish118⋉talk 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
IMHO, having those 'extras' in the infoboxes aren't necessary. But most important to me is consistency on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Follow my contribs on these bios, for a better understanding of what I'm getting at. I've removed a few more (Church, Diocese, See) from infoboxes & put in my edit-summary Redundant, which is how I see having them there to begin with. We already have Bishop of Rome at the top of the infobox, so the Diocese = Rome isn't needed. The bio intros say the popes are the head of the Catholic Church, so that makes Church = Catholic Church not required. IMHO See = Holy See is also redundant in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented your decision. Removing the Diocese & See from the infoboxes of all the popes. As for the Church? I've chosen to (re-)add it to the infoboxes of all the popes. If another editor removes the Church entry? I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Orvieto Papacy, etc
I came across this article recently; I’ve never heard of this term before (though I am familiar with the Avignon Papacy) and a google search for it failed to turn up anything other than copies of the WP article, while a book search turned up nothing at all. I can only assume this is (at best) a piece of original writing, or (at worst) an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. I also note we have a whole bunch of these time-specific papacies (listed on the Popes template), from the Ostrogothic to the Baroque. None of these show up in the Catholic Encyclopedia; Does anyone have any sources to corroborate this usage? Otherwise these articles need to be moved to descriptive, non-judgemental titles, such as "Papal residence at Orvieto", "Papacy in the Ostrogothic period" etc (as with the Revolutionary Papacy) Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , once St. Peter arrived in Rome, the only location where any person officially regarded as a Catholic pope has lived other than Rome is Avignon -- and that only during a time of papal exile due to political turmoil in Italy, 1309-1377 AD, which actually spanned the tenure of seven popes. The Western Schism saw the Roman Catholic Church split initially into two and subsequently three papal obediences that were more or less geographical, with the sees of those now deemed to have been antipopes being Avignon (1378-1417) and Pisa (1409-1417) before the Council of Constance restored unity.  The other antipopes through the years did not typically have enough of a following to amount to much, but it's certainly plausible that one or another of them had a supposed see in Orvieto.  There are also a handful of crackpots who have claimed that the Roman See was vacant after Vatican II because Paul VI and subsequent popes were not really popes for one reason or another, and that God has made special provision by elevating them to the papal office -- and yes, they run around in white cassocks and zucchettos, but I'm not aware of any of them having enough of a following to be relevant -- so it's certainly plausible that one or another of these has a supposed papal see in Orvieto.  I'd check out what's going on before altering or removing anything.  Norm1979 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really what we are talking about. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the article itself is clear enough, it refers to a period in the 13th century (so, nothing to do with sedevacantism): My only question was whether anyone can corroborate the term (I can’t). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Orvieto Papacy article seems fine, but the title should probably be changed.  But not to "Papal residence at Orvieto", which sounds like an article on a building.  That eg  Baroque Papacy doesn't "show up in the Catholic Encyclopedia" is no sort of argument! That's only a redirect to an over-short section in "history of..." anyway.  Medieval Rome was dominated by gangsterish noble families that the papacy struggled, and very often failed, to control, and was often downright unsafe for extended periods.  Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; what title would you suggest? As for Baroque papacy, the only source I can find is this by Peter Tusor, from 2016 (which post-dates its use here); It doesn’t seem enough to be definitive. Are you saying we should keep these pages where they are? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Orvieto and the popes, Orvieto as a papal refuge perhaps. Baroque papacy is just a redirect, & harmless, even if there is little there. "Baroque popes" gives far better search results. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * &, are you all sure that Orvieto was a refuge for legitimate popes and not the see of an antipope of the period in question? Do either of you have citable references for that?  Norm1979 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fairly - all the popes mentioned at the start of the article were legitimate, & there is no mention of Orvieto (unlike Pisa, Viterbo, Avignon, and many other places) in Antipope. You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about them frankly. Orvieto, in the Papal States, was a secure location fairly close to Rome, and a natural hangout in difficult times. "Because of its site on a high, steep bluff of tuff, a volcanic rock, the city was virtually impregnable", Orvieto says.  Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, I don't have a particular bee in my bonnet about antipopes. The information that I have on my fingertips on the subject gives places of birth for the antipopes for whom it's known, but says nothing about their sees.  But we should ensure that our changes are defensible even if the existing content of an article seems not to be defensible.  The earlier comments in this thread carried a pretty strong implication of uncertainty about the situation, implying a need for further investigation before making changes.  Norm1979 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than to the title, I don't see anyone proposing changes. The "see" of  antipopes surely became Rome, at least in theory, and they seem to have been as mobile as the legitimate medieval popes, tending to spend time in Imperial territory. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, most antipopes claimed the see of Roma (the notable exceptions being those of the Western Schism). But they would not have had access to the official papal residence and the Roman basilicas, so where did they actually set up shop?  Norm1979 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anywhere but Orvieto, apparently. I think some did control Rome in fact - Antipope Victor IV (1159–1164) for example, and several of the ones before 1000. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, all popes and antipopes regarded themselve as bishops of Rome; I don't know why you except the antipopes of the Western Schism. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , none of the antipopes of the Western Schism ever attempted to establish residence in, or anywhere near, Rome. In the wake of the Avignon exile (1309-1377), some of the cardinals who elected Pope Urban VI on 08 April 1378 declared the election to be illegitimate and proceeded to elect Clement VII, who promptly set up shop at the vacated papal residence in Avignon.  Many of those cardinals apparently were French, as that action actually split the Roman Catholic Church geographically into two separate bodies, each with its own pope -- one in communion with Rome and the other in communion with Avignon, each with its own College of Cardinals.  The Avignon cardinals subsequently elected Benedict XIII to succeed Clement VII to the Avignon papal office in 1394.
 * In an attempt to bring this schism to an end, bishops in Pisa convoked a synod in 1409, with no authorization from either claimant to the papal office, that drew bishops and cardinals from both bodies. This synod purported to convict both Gregory XII (the Roman pope) and Benedict XIII of many charges of heresy and schism, depose both of them, and order the election of a new pope.  The cardinals present in Pisa for this synod promptly elected Alexander V -- who remained in Pisa and reigned from there.  Instead of unifying the church, however, this action created a third body with its own pope and cardinals.  The Pisan College of Cardinals subsequently elected John XXIII to succeed Alexander V in 1410.
 * The Council of Constance (1414-1418) finally brought the schism to an end in 1417. Norm1979 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes, but afaik anyone claiming to be pope by definition claimed to be Bishop of Rome, the two roles being effectively synonymous. The fact that many antipopes and legitimate popes never set foot in the city during their reigns is neither here nor there. Pope Clement V is a legitimate example. Btw, your opening assertion in this section "once St. Peter arrived in Rome, the only location where any person officially regarded as a Catholic pope has lived other than Rome is Avignon" is wrong; many popes, mostly medieval, have spent extended periods living elsewhere.   Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've boldly moved this to Orvieto and the popes. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I'm late to the discussion, but is correct. The anti-popes who lived in Avignon, did indeed claim to be Bishops of Rome. Indeed, being Bishop of Rome is what makes you Pope, not the other way around. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Orthodox Catholic Church
You are invited to join the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD for Reformed Old Catholic Church
I have starded an AfD at Articles for deletion/Reformed Old Catholic Church. Please come and give your insight! Veverve (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)