Talk:List of bishops and patriarchs of Aquileia

Titling inconsistency

We have three articles on two of the patriarchs and one of their altarpieces that are titled inconsistently:

• Pellegrino di Ortenbourg (Pellegrino I)
• Pellegrino of Ortenburg-Sponheim (Pellegrino II)
• Altarpiece of Pellegrinus II

The names Pellegrinus, Pellegrino and Pilgrim are synonymous. "Ortenbourg" is just Italian for "Ortenburg". Our second Pellegrino is the Pellegrinus II of the altarpiece. "Di" is just Italian for "of". I would prefer to re-title the patriarchs by ordinal (I and II) and then update the altarpiece to match. I would also prefer "Pilgrim" because it is English (and German, which the patriarchs were) over the Italian or Latin forms. Any objection? Srnec (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary sources would have used the Latin "Pellegrinus". Some of the English sources follow the German and use "Pilgrim", but most follow the Italian and use Pellegrino. Common English usage is the way to go. Google books gives

• "Pellegrino II" Aquileia 95 results. The first ten include five English, five Italian results. After that they are mostly Italian, but some English.
• "Pilgrim II" Aquileia 36 results. The first is the English 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, then they are all German.
• "Pellegrinus II" Aquileia gives 8 results, 3 English, 3 German, 1 Italian and 1 Latin.

It is a mistake to identify the German given name "Pilgrim" or "Piligrim" with the English word, which is very rarely used as a given name. The English sources lean heavily towards Pellegrino. If the ordinal is used, it should by followed by "of Aquileia", e.g. "Pellegrino II of Aquileia". Pilgrim II is a horse.

Catholic bishops

There is at least one contemporary Orthodox prelate called Metropolitan of Aquileia (et al.) - should this article specify "This is a list of Catholic bishops ..."? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bishops and patriarchs of Aquileia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204015209/http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/aqui0.htm to http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/aqui0.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

Should Patriarch of Grado be merged here? Cf. Talk:Patriarch of Grado. PPEMES (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, on the grounds that the lists diverge after 606. I know that there is some duplication before then, particularly List of bishops and patriarchs of Aquileia#Patriarchs of Grado, but that is consistent with SUMMARY form. It would also be difficult to accommodate the modern titular see for Grado into the old Aquileia list, particularly given that there is a separate Titular Archbishop of Aquileia page. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Should not merge, for reasons already given. The topics are already sufficiently complicated, that merging would add to confusion on the part of the general reader, rather than increase clarity. --Vicedomino (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, they should keep separate given different histories.Eccekevin (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)