Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands

Territory

and covering the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

This paragraph is not correct. The apostolic prefecture only covers the Falkland Islands. The website GCatholic incorrectly stated that South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are in the jurisdiction of the apostolic prefecture. That's just a guess the author.

• The Apostolic Constitution dated January 10, 1952 says: (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1952, page 512)

Apostolicae Nostrae potestatis plenitudine, quas memoravimus Insulas de Falkland seu Malvinas in Praefecturam Apostolicam «de Insulis Falkland seu Malvinis» nuncupandam, erigimus et constituimus, quam curis committimus sodalium Societatis S. Iosephi de Mill-Hill, ad Nostrum tamen et Apostolicae Sedis beneplacitum.

Falkland Islands Dependencies are not mentioned in this Apostolic Constitution.

• The Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands was separated from the Apostolic Vicariate of Magellan, this vicariate was created on October 4, 1916 by the decree Quae rei sacrae of the Consistorial Congregation: (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1916, page 406)

Huius autem Vicariatus fines erunt: ad septentrionem linea geographica parallela 47; ad orientem limites civiles inter Rempublicam Argentinam et Cilenam; ad meridiem et occasum mare Pacificum, insulis Malvinis comprehensis, ad Anglicum Gubernium spectantibus.

This decree does not mention the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

• The website of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands does not mention the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands at any time nor put them on the map.

The vast territorial area of the jurisdiction covers about one sixth of the world's surface. In that area there are, in fact, two ecclesiastic jurisdictions. The first is the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands and the second is the Independent Mission (missio sui iuris) of the Islands of St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha.

The map of St Mary's Parish only shows the Falkland Islands.

• The website of The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales does not mention the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands:

Mgr Michael Bernard McPartland SMA is the Apostolic Prefect of the Falkland Islands and Ecclesiastic Superior of St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha.

• The website Catholic Hierarchy does not mention the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. This website says that the area of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands is 12,173 Square Kilometers (4,701 Square Miles) corresponding only to the Falklands Islands.

For all I have seen, there is no certain bases that support what GCatholic says.--Nerêo (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into your own research. The priest in the Falkland Islands covers services in South Georgia from time to time. As there is no permanent priest in the South Georgia, the resident priest in Stanley periodically travels to South Georgia to conduct services there. I will check with friends in Stanley but for now have restored the original cited content. WCM_email 21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You have reversed based on personal knowledge that has not referenced. There is no and there was never Catholic population in South Georgia, so the pastor of Malvinas need not go there. If that pastor made a visit to the islands, that does not mean part of their jurisdiction. From New Zealand for many years a Catholic priest has traveled to cover McMurdo and other bases without thereby integrate his diocese.

The only sustenance to keep the South Georgia and South Sandwich islands make up the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands is GCatholic, but this website does not give any references. Show you a Church document that mentions these islands make up the apostolic prefecture or show any mention of the apostolic prefect or any data other than GCatholic.

While not display information referenced is not possible to maintain a fact not supported in the article, so that I will remove it.

I want to add, just for your information, I maintain communication with the Owner of GCatholic website, and on several occasions have managed to modify the information was not correct. Now I will report on this matter.--Nerêo (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:EGO, did we need a diatribe, did you have to revert now? As I said I would I've asked a friend to check and if it came back wrong I would have reverted it myself. Really are you cut out for working in what's supposed to be a collaborative environment. WCM_email 22:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no unfriendly intention, I explained with unquestionable references that the data has no sustenance, and my change was reversed immediately with the excuse of asking a friend. That does not apply in Wikipedia. Greetings.--Nerêo (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Absence of evidence in your preferred sources, does not trump a direct source. But you decided you were right on that basis and went ahead anyway. Its supposed to be WP:BRD, you decided to do WP:BRR and thats not how collaborative editing works. I'm not going to indulge you in an edit war, if this is confirmed I will restore it though. And as it appears English is not your first language, I would suggest you look at whats left when you're gutting sentences. What first alerted me to your change and why I decided to revert was the sentence made no sense. WCM_email 23:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously if these islands are not part of the jurisdiction of the Apostolic Prefecture, hardly we find a source that says that, as hardly find a source that says that those islands are not part of the Archdiocese of Montevideo (for instance). Who makes the claim (or defend) that the islands are part of the Apostolic Prefecture must prove that that's right. Whatever your rhetoric, you can not escape this. If the data appears well-referenced, paragraph turns and the encyclopedia will be improved, this is not about fads. I myself reverse if I find positive evidence.--Nerêo (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is you do have a source that says that it includes other BOT in the South Atlantic. Based on some fairly poor websites that don't mention it you removed it. WCM_email 10:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And are you aware that in 1952, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies? [1] p512 "Quod tandem, variis superatis difficultatibus, ad effectum deducere modo licet. Collato itaque consilio cum dilecto Filio Nostro S. R. E. Cardinale S. Consilio Christiano Nomini Propagando Praefecto, suppleto, quatenus opus sit quorum intersit vel eorum qui sua interesse praesumant consensu, re plene cognita, Apostolicae Nostrae potestatis plenitudine, quas memoravimus Insulas de Falkland seu Malvinas in Praefecturam Apostolicam « de Insulis Falkland seu Malvinis » nuncupandam, erigimus et constituimus, quam curis committimus sodalium Societatis S. Iosephi de Mill-Hill, ad Nostrum tamen et Apostolicae Sedis beneplacitum, maxime in Domino confisi uberiores fructus eorum sollertia percipi posse."" or "But at last, having overcome the various difficulties, the effect of the withdrawal of way is it lawful. On a comparison of the Christian, therefore, to the name of the council of his plans to his beloved Son the Cardinal S. Propagando the prefect, and making good, in so far as it had an interest in the work of those who presume to be the consent of the interested person or those persons, but in fact completely unknown to me, the fullness of Our Apostolic power, such as those indicated in the islands of the Falkland or Malvinas Praefecturam Apostolic "out of the Malvinas or Falkland Islands» be called, erected, and holiness, which we entrust to the members of the Society of St. Joseph of the cares of Mill-Hill, and the Apostolic See, however, show to the good pleasure of the most important trust in the Lord perceived their positions to be able to reap more abundant fruits. "" The source you're claiming doesn't include South Georgia arguably does in the language of 1952. WCM_email 10:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not correct translation from Latin, the word "de" means "of". The Apostolic Constitution defines the territory of the apostolic prefecture (Insulas de Falkland seu Malvinas in Praefecturam Apostolicam) is creating and then gives its name (« de Insulis Falkland seu Malvinis »). This name, which is the officially name, is easily verified from other sources. In the same 1952 AAS it appears as the title of the Apostolic Constitution SUB NOMINE «DE INSULIS FALKLAND SEU MALVINIS» (sub nomine = under the name). Then it is listed: see page 384 Praefectum Apostolicum of Insulis Falkland seu Malvinis; page 901: de Insulis FALKLAND SEU MALVINIS.

It is not correct your statement that the Falkland Islands Dependencies are not called at that time. See these [2] 18 postage stamps from 1954 to 1962, in all of them the name appears Falkland Islands Dependencies. The name was set in the 1908 patent letter: Whereas the group of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham's Land (...) as Dependencies of our Colony of the Falklands.[3]

I do not understand your commitment to hold at all costs a paragraph not referenced. Typically you could help me find what is correct thing and not obstruct me diverting my efforts. I hope your help to clarify this matter as soon as possible. Thank you.--Nerêo (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Paragraph was referenced, you are simply ignoring that it is referenced. And your comment about the Falkland Islands Dependencies is gibberish, if you're claiming that South Georgia et al were not known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies you are very much mistaken. I think your command of the English language is letting you down. WCM_email 17:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad English, that does not stop communicate. As you already know, Wikipedia is a multilingual project, so nothing prevents me to write in my mother tongue in this discussion. I make the effort to translate into English and hope for your understanding. I did not say (except misspelling) South Georgia that are not part of the Dependencies. There are two Internet portals dealing with Catholic territorial jurisdictions and history. One is GCatholic and the other is Catholic Hierarchy. Both are widely used in Wikipedia as reference sources. In this case the first without giving sources that includes South Georgia and South Sandwich integrate the apostolic prefecture, and the second denies based on the Annuario Pontificio as a reference source. Therefore the reference in paragraph is void, being both portals equal respect.--Nerêo (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bulls and successive apostolic constitutions of the Holy See regarding the Falkland Islands began in 1883 with the erection of the 'Prefettura Apostolica della Patagonia Meridionale, Terra del Fuoco ed Isole Malvine.[4] [5] [6] It is specified comprising: Isole Malvine.

Then follows the creation of the Apostolic Vicariate in 1916:(Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1916, page 406) insulis Malvinis comprehensis, ad Anglicum Gubernium spectantibus.

Follows the creation of the Diocese of Punta Arenas in 1947, which exempts from its jurisdiction to the Falkland Islands: (Ut in amplissimo, AAS 39 (1947), page 337) Vicariatum Apostolicum Magellanensem, eius servato territorio, exceptis vero Malvinas insulis

Follows the creation of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands: (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1952, page 512) Insulas de Falkland seu Malvinas in Praefecturam Apostolicam «de Insulis Falkland seu Malvinis»

All these documents mention only the Falkland Islands. None of them can infer that includes other islands, and it seems reasonable to assume that the Holy See was ignorant. I give proven that the founding documents of the ecclesial jurisdictions including the Falkland Islands, I know, only mention those islands (Malvinas/ Falkland). If at any time the jurisdiction was extended to other islands, it was not in those documents. I want to know if it happened, when it happened, and that document. So far I have not found anything.--Nerêo (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

In 1952, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies. In terms of the language used in 1952, they were included as part of the Falkland Islands. This isn't a difficult point to understand? WCM_email 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree, the Dependencies were always an entity other than the Falkland Islands. If true this statement, we should understand that Graham Land and South Shetland integrates the prefecture. You should try it then that in 1952 when he spoke of Malvinas could be any territory from the South Pole to the Jason Islands.--Nerêo (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not in 1952 they weren't, in fact they weren't separated till 1985. I really don't care if you don't agree, you can't argue with cited content. Its WP:V that counts not whether you believe it to be WP:TRUE. WCM_email 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not right, in 1985 the Dependencies a British Overseas Territory became. I do not rule out that the apostolic prefect opine that its jurisdiction includes the South Georgias, and even reach the South Pole. There are examples of similar situations in the Catholic Church: the bishopric of Rio Gallegos believes his diocese comprises the islands and reaches South Pole. It is necessary to distinguish between a claim of a bishop or a diocese and jurisdiction legally granted by the Holy See. Sometimes the Vatican authorities do not intervene and allow to continue situaciones. No possess these sources to clarify this point so far.--Nerêo (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah I hadn't noticed this, so once again its a case of an Argentine editing for POV reasons on what should be an entirely uncontroversial matter. I should have noted the date. WCM_email 17:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not helping to clarify the matter, only obstructed. When you input a source that would clarify this matter, I will continue the discussion, meanwhile it makes no sense to discuss with you.--Nerêo (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A source has already been provided, I didn't have to but I was polite enough to take an extra step and check. If that comes back positive, I'm reverting as it quite apparent you have no desire to discuss this and you don't have an authoritative source to contradict the one we do have. WCM_email 21:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Some bizarre things that people get a bee in their bonnet about and start ridiculous edit wars over. The facts:

• We have a cite, a WP:SECONDARY source which you acknowledge is generally accurate and accepted on wikipedia.
• Original document, primary source see WP:PRIMARY can be interpreted as inclusive when it is noted that these were referred to as the Falkland Islands Dependencies in 1952.
• Local knowledge confirms it - direct from the horses mouth.

You've decided based on WP:OR to question this and tried to insert your own WP:OR into the article. I suggest you drop the WP:STICK, you don't have an authoritative WP:SECONDARY source that says different. WCM_email 17:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Must not have double standards, the islands are not mentioned in the documents, so you can not accuse me of interpretation, it is you who wants to say do not say the apostolic constitutions.

You have not submitted any source to support your position, and indeed there is no longer the only support I had. GCatholic already modified its website eliminating the alleged membership of South Georgia and South Sandwich the apostolic prefecture: [7] [8] [9]. The webmaster of this website has done because I will I required information about your opinion.

It is the new GCatholic view that legally the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have been awarded to the diocese of Rio Gallegos. So I not stand this view and believe that these islands are not part of any territorial jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. Not having any source that supports your point of view, it is not possible to maintain it and remove it again warning him that should not edit without valid sources.

Last time I repeat, I am not advocating a point of view or another, I intend to clarify a matter that is not clear. Cease its hostile attitude and provide reference sources to help solve the point.--Nerêo (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am astounded at the lengths people will go to impose their views on wikipedia but bullying a website owner to change the entry is a new one on me. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that your interest was NPOV. WCM_email 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

His conflict of interest becomes very apparent. I have not intimated any website owner to change their opinion, from the beginning I have communicated to you that you would request information GCatholic and I did, and I communicated publicly here. The owner of GCatholic alone has made the change to realize that did not support his opinion.

You reinserted information that can not be verified in any source and its reversions has fallen sabotage Wikipedia. This will report to sanctions being taken against you.

It's you again leave me a message that violates the principle of good repute and ask to be punished for that.

In no time I thought that the islands in question belong to the jurisdiction of the Catholic Diocese of Rio Gallegos, on the contrary, I expressed myself against it. But you should know that the diocese claims jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich. So you can see in this pastoral letter from his bishop:

Aunque el territorio de las Islas Malvinas conforman una jurisdicción propia que depende directamente del Santo Padre, el Papa, sabemos que están dentro del territorio de nuestra Diócesis de Río Gallegos. (Although the territory of the Falkland Islands make up its own jurisdiction reports directly to the Holy Father, the Pope, we know that are within the territory of our Diocese of Rio Gallegos.)

---

Website of the Diocese of Rio Gallegos

El territorio geográfico de las provincias de Tierra del Fuego y Santa Cruz, y las Islas del Atlántico Sur, integran la jurisdicción de la Diócesis de Río Gallegos (The geographical territory of the provinces of Tierra del Fuego and Santa Cruz, and South Atlantic Islands, integrate the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Rio Gallegos)

---

Website of the Diocese of Rio Gallegos

Comprende todo el territorio de las provincias de Santa Cruz y Tierra del Fuego e Islas del Atlántico Sur (It covers the entire territory of the provinces of Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego and South Atlantic Islands)

---

Website of the Conferencia Episcopal Argentina

Diócesis de Río Gallegos: Jurisdicción: Comprende todo el territorio de las provincias de Santa Cruz y Tierra del Fuego. (Jurisdiction: Includes the entire territory of the provinces of Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego.

---

See what is called South Atlantic Islands in Argentina at the site of INDEC (statistical institute): Islas Malvinas, islas Georgias del Sur, islas Sandwich del Sur, islas Orcadas del Sur ---

See what it says bull of erection of the diocese of Río Gallegos (April 10, 1961): (Bull Ecclesiarum omnium, AAS 54 (1962), p. 142)

A Sedis Rivadaviae territorio eam partem separamus quae civiles regiones complectitur «Santa Cruz» et «Gobernación de Tierra del Fuego» cognominatas, ex eaque dioecesim condimus Rivogallaecensem, ab urbe Rio Gallegos, nuncupandam, iisdemque finibus circumscribendam atque regiones quarum nomen fecimus, prout in praesens terminantur. Nova ergo dioecesis confinis erit: ad septemtrionem dioecesi Rivadaviae; ad orientem solem Oceano Atlantico; ad meridiem regionibus australi poloproximis; ad occidentem denique solem finibus Reipublicae Chilenae. Episcopi Sedes ac domicilium in urbe erit Rio Gallegos cognominata (... we separate civil regions of "Santa Cruz" and the "Gobernación de Tierra del Fuego» ... The new diocese bordering it to the north diocese of Rivadavia; Atlantic Ocean to the east; to the south the southern regions near the pole; Finally, to the west of the Republic Chilean...)

---

Decree Law 2191 of 28 February 1957 which established the Government of Tierra del Fuego National Territory ol Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands, setting its limits: [10]

Artículo 2°. El territorio Nacional de la Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sud comprende: la parte oriental de la isla Grande y demás islas del archipiélago de la Tierra del Fuego e Islas de los Estados y Año Nuevo, conforme a los límites fijados por el tratado del 23 de julio de 1881, las Islas Malvinas, las Islas Georgias del Sur, las Islas Sandwich del Sur y el sector Antártico Argentino comprendido entre los meridianos 25 Oeste y 74 Oeste y el paralelo 60º Sur. (Article 2. The national territory of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and Islands of the South Atlantic includes: the eastern part of the Great and other islands of the Tierra del Fuego and Islands, Island and New Year, according to the limits set by the treaty of July 23, 1881, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the Argentine Antarctic sector between the meridians 25 West and 74 West and parallel 60 ° South.)

---

1) I left well documented that so far no primary or secondary sources substantiating that the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands integrated. the jurisdiction of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands.

2) I have submitted the documentation of the papal bulls that created the ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the area and do not mention these islands.

3) I have submitted the documentation proving that the Diocese of Rio Gallegos believes that these islands are in its jurisdiction.

4) I have requested information from the webmaster of the site presented only as a source, and his response was to change on its website to the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Rio Gallegos because he has no source.

5) I have repeatedly asked the only publisher that opposes to deliver reference sources and their response was hostile, and did not present any. He simply reinserting the phrase several times and made personal attacks against me.--Nerêo (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong, the WP:PRIMARY source supports the content, when you are aware that the islands were known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies in 1952. WP:RSN actually agreed with me that a source that changes its content in order to influence wikipedia can't be considered reliable. I am well aware that Argentina claims the islands as part of it Province of Tierra del Fuego, that has no relevance to this article. And I am well aware that various institutions in Argentina claim jurisdiction over various South Atlantic islands but again their claims are of no relevance to this article. Both have no practical effect. When has the Bishop of Rio Gallegos ever conducted a service in South Georgia? The vicar of St Mary's does regularly and we both know it is against church rules to conduct services in someone else's patch.

You know what, please do carry your threat of trying to have me punished. Take this to WP:ANI as I am already contemplating that. WCM_email 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not go back again and again on the same input sources to prove their point of view. I have shown that in 1952 there were the FID (see postage stamps). It is you who supports a source that changed his point of view, therefore the source should not be considered. Everything related to the issue of sovereignty dispute has been brought by you to the discussion. When has the Bishop of Malvinas ever conducted a service in South Georgia? That bishop was only once in the islands in 2007 of passing Tristan da Cunha and did not conduct any religious service.--Nerêo (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The vicar of St Mary's does though. So you acknowledge they were the Falkland Islands Dependencies and yet still claim they aren't covered. BTW this being the English wikipedia, in English we refer to the Falkland Islands. You were claiming this wasn't about POV editing? WCM_email 13:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is your problem if you do not know the difference that existed between the Malvinas or Falkland (his claim on the name alone shows its intolerance another point of view than yours) and the Falkland Islands Dependencies. It is not my role to teach anything. If you do not agree look valid sources that support your point of view. Show that the vicar apostolic prefect or (when he was, now there is none) led religious services in South Georgia. Bishop Partland in 2007 was for three days in these islands when the boat carrying him to Tristan da Cunha stop there. He said that saying that only made tourism. [11]--Nerêo (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You're now claiming there isn't a vicar of St Mary's? Really, he is listed on their website. WCM_email 16:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

At the moment we have one full time resident priest, Fr Peter Norris SFO, serving as Parish Priest of St Mary’s Church, Stanley, in the Falkland Islands. Initially, he applied to fill the vacancy that had been advertised in his diocesan Newsletter of Southwark Archdiocese. Father Peter has also served as Officiating Chaplain to the Military and as Chaplain to the Navy Cadets in the Falkland Islands. However, after eight years of dedicated service he is due to return to his diocese in January 2013.[12]

--Nerêo (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Southwark, the Prefecture of the Falkland Islands "also includes St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension Island, and South Georgia." See this source. The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales carries the same information [13] as does the Roman Catholic Diocese of Menevia [14].

I trust that these reliable sources, explicitly written by the Catholic Church itself, decide the issue in favour of including the disputed content. Kahastok talk 15:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Indutably, would you care to do the honours as you found them. WCM_email 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

For now the 3 sources provided are sufficient to restore the paragraph. However, these secondary sources do not provide insight into how the Holy See Catholic jurisdiction extended to South Georgia. The sources are an interested party, and it is possible that this has never happened formally. The neutral point of view also requires that there is a mention of the diocese of Rio Gallegos believes are within its jurisdiction. I will continue investigating over the matter, but as for User: Kahastok was easier to get the information you requested help. Thank you.--Nerêo (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Didn't finish the edit summary.

I'm tagging this article for NPOV.

1. WP:PRIMARY source supports content, when you are aware that in 1952, the islands were known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies.
2. WP:SECONDARY source has been changed in order to influence content on wikipedia. This is tantamount to wikifiddling.
3. Editors are ignoring the primary source and edit warring to remove relevant content. WCM_email 08:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by IP

Hello IP User:142.161.81.20.

Please could you explain the reasons for this edit so that consensus can be established. The proper way to do this is on the talk page here instead of through edit wars. Thanks, Kahastok talk 22:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kahastok: It appears self-evident, but it was done to comply with MOS:BIO and MOS:ICONDECORATION. Could you explain the opposition to the edit? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The use of one flag icon is not overuse, so MOS:ICONDECORATION does not apply. And the opposition was your changes did not materially improve the article and in fact removed information. WCM_email 00:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What information is that, Wee Curry Monster? Are you referring to the post-nominal letters? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And with respect to the flag, where does MOS:ICONDECORATION provide for "overuse" as a criterion for its application? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It does, if you actually read the policy. But in this case it is also providing encyclopedic information. And yes I am referring to the post-nominal letters. WCM_email 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that this article also seems to be consistent with other articles on Apostolic Prefectures. I'm not seeing much reason to remove the relevant information here. Kahastok talk 19:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that is addressed in my most recent reply to Wee Curry Monster. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: It does, if you actually read the policy. The entire text of MOS:ICONDECORATION is as follows:

Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. Where icons are used for layout purposes only, consider using bullet points as an alternative.

Do not put icons in section headings; this is an accessibility problem.

So where specifically does it say that overuse is prerequisite to the application of MOS:ICONDECORATION?

Furthermore, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG provides:

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons. ...

As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport.

Thus in addition to the issues with MOS:ICONDECORATION, the use of the icon here is incongruent with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as its use does not "convey information in addition to the text" (except insofar as it tells us what the territory's flag is, and of course if the provision were to be erroneously interpreted as that constituting "information in addition to the text", it would render the provision null in every case).

Finally, with respect to the post-nominal letters, MOS:POSTNOM provides:

Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honor.

How do you reconcile the inclusion of the flag icon and the post-nominal letters with MOS:ICONDECORATION, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, and MOS:POSTNOM? And if you cannot, on what basis does this qualify as an exceptional circumstance? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Flag icons are used in infoboxes all the time, this isn't a section heading. Do you have a point?

“ Accompany flags with country names

The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table. (For example, in this infobox, flags of countries involved in a battle are first given with their names. Following this, the flag alone is used to identify the nationality of military commanders.) To achieve this, the flag-and-name template Japan (or JPN) would be used first, and in subsequent uses. However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (example) are easier to read if [[|]] is used throughout.

However, first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached via links from other articles targeting an . Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, since the images rendered can be difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size.

”

I reconcile it because MOS suggests you do it. Further if you read the policy, it only suggests that post-nominals are not included when they are under discussion elsewhere, they're not here. It appears you are over zealously applying guidelines as rigid rules according to your own personal and flawed interpretation.

A request, stop pinging me its irritating. I will see you response and reply - its on my watch list. WCM_email 09:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Flag icons are used in infoboxes all the time. MOS:ICON tells us that, "[g]enerally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes", but discusses cases where it is appropriate to do so. There is no provision that provides for it here, however.

With respect to the "Accompany flags with country names" section you quoted, it only provides that all flags must be accompanied by a country name as most people are not familiar enough with every flag to be able to determine its country of origin. Nowhere in the provision you quoted does it provide for the reverse, i.e., that all country names must be accompanied by a flag (which would, of course, be ludicrous). That being the case, I'm not seeing how you are reconciling your position with MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which, again, provide:

Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. ...

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text.

Additionally, you didn't answer the question. You have asserted that "overuse" of icons is prerequisite to the application of MOS:ICONDECORATION. Where does it say that?

Further if you read the policy, it only suggests that post-nominals are not included when they are under discussion elsewhere, they're not here. Where specifically does it say that? Might you be misremembering this sentence?:

Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honor.

It appears you are over zealously applying guidelines as rigid rules. No, I am merely recognizing that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Thus the guidelines are to be applied absent exceptional circumstances, of which there are none here.

A request, stop pinging me its irritating. I will see you response and reply - its on my watch list. Certainly. I was only doing so as a courtesy to you. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you planning to continue cutting and pasting large tracts of text from policy? Do you think repeatedly doing so is helpful?

I reconcile it because having read the policy it appears appropriate use. You are simply wrong, a flag icon next to a country name is appropriate and acceptable. You appear to dislike it, people here disagree with you. WCM_email 09:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)