Talk:List of patron saints by occupation and activity

Nicholas of Myra

Nicolas of Myra is claimed to be the Patron Saint of "prostitutes." Is this vandalism? I highly doubt the catholic church would consider prostitution to be a profession, much less one deserving of a patron saint.

I do not think this is vandalism. There is a patron saint of thieves (Dismas) and of petty thieves (Cucuphas), "professions" that also would not be condoned by the Catholic Church. There are also three female saints who are patronesses of reformed prostitutes.[1] There is also a patron saint of serial killers, Caedwalla.[2] --Polylerus 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Saint Miller

A google search for "Saint Miller" reveals little having anything to do with mathematics or mathematicians. Is there a reference for this listing?

Patron Saint of Gunfighters?

I remember reading a website a while back about an Italian guy who was supposedly canonized, and recognized as the Patron Saint of gunfighters. If memory serves, he was a monk who was travelling through Italy (maybe with other pilgrims, maybe not), and he came across a village being terrorized by a few soldiers. So, he walked up to one of the soldiers, drew the soldier's pistol, shot him with it, and got the rest of the soldiers to surrender.

Unfortunately, I can't remember his name, so I can't search for more information or create an article on him. Does this ring any bells for anyone?--Nick012000 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing between Roman Catholic and other Catholic religion's saints

Should we bother doing this? As a Roman Catholic, I know I can receive communion in any other type of Catholic or Orthodox church, so I'm sure we should all recognize the saints no matter which type of Catholic church they were canonized in. I see no point in distinguishing them, which I have seen on several saints.
NewYork1956 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• "St. Trane of Modal", maybe?
• "St. Charles the Martyr King"
• "St. Dnyaneshwar sanjeevan Samadhi"
• St. Pontius Pilate is not celebrated in churches that celebrate Saint Procula
• St. Constantine the Great

And because local Orthodox churches have their own saints, Rome does not accept all of them. Spelling it out would be labor intensive here, and would duplicate info from various other saints list articles.

Mdbrownmsw 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RTFT

Please read the title. Countries, medical conditions, etc. do not belong on this list. Epilepsy, France, real estate, potatoes, noble gases, etc. are neither occupations nor activities. Thank you and have a nice day. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Faith, hope and love are also not occupations or activities. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you doing this weekend? Well, taking some time off from my career doing scoliosis, I'm going to spend some time doing scoliosis. It's both my occupation and an activity, right? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I must admit that "patron saint of noble gases" was not something that had ever occurred to me as a possibility until today when I first read this section... Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

St. Joseph

Is there anything about a St. Joseph the Worker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestAngel (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

This article was moved from Patron saints of occupations and activities to Patron saints of occupations, activities and communication mediums without discussion. I oppose the move for one simple reason: "occupations and activities" are things people do, "communication mediums" are wholly unrelated. You may feel that patron saints of communication mediums is a significant topic. Go ahead, create the article. That said, shoehorning it in here is awkward at best. Failing substantial support for keeping the new title (and content), I'll move this back in a few days. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gang Bing - Patron Saint of Eunuchs

Wasn't sure if this one goes in this list or Patron saints of ailments, illness and dangers or both. I'm thinking both since it is an ailment but also an occupation if you read Eunuch. -- œ^™ 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Is there a source for this list, other than those given for individual saints? Right now there's no indication that any of these are right. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking

I am wholly convinced this article is of a poorer quality due to the number of wikilinks and as such have reverted an edit in which I was reverted, by another editor acting in good faith. Rubbish computer 00:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, i believe your actions to be misjudged on two counts ~ first though you have taken out a whole lot of links, you have put back the Overlinked template, and second you took a bold step, you were reverted, the next step was to discuss it rather than rerevert.

As far as the links go, i believe there you are incorrect, also. MOSLINK is very clear that the purpose of wlinks is to aid our readers' understanding. In a prose article, in general, i would agree that the number of wlinks here is too high; for a list article, such as this is, it is not. It cannot hurt the article if every potential link is made, because no one comes to such an article to read it ~ it is not readable, it is a list.

Not only this, but the choices you have made are very strange. You took out tanners and left in arms dealers ~ don't you think it far more likely today's readers are going to need an explanation of the former more than the latter?

I believe that the article should have the links replaced forthwith. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 02:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Regarding taking out tanners and leaving in arm's dealers, I wasn't judging which links I took out carefully. As this is a list article it appears you are correct. Rubbish computer 10:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) @LindsayH: I would like to remove links that are duplicated throughout, though, such as animal husbandry.

Rubbish computer, i think that's a fine idea. Duplications are a problem; but the other, as this is a list, not so much. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Rubbish computer 10:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is prisoner an occupation?

I came accross the fact that St Dismas is patron saint of prisoners. Is this an occupation? Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

First things first: Thanks so much for citing sources and not adding completely off-topic stuff (i.e., understanding that "France" is neither an occupation or activity). It's a refreshing change for this article and I appreciate it.

The definition I found for occupation is "job, profession, work, line of work, trade, employment, position, post, situation, business, career, field, métier, vocation, calling, craft". I don't see it as fitting in their. However, I think the article's title is a bit wonky.

"Activities" doesn't fit here. Things like "nursing mothers" are not activities, "nursing" is the activity. Without sources for all the entries, we can't really suss out whether the entries show them to be patron saints of the activities or of those engaged in the activity.

The point, IMO, is that the category needs some help. I think the intention here is to break up an otherwise overly long list into more manageable chunks. This article and the related ones (Patron saints of ailments, illness, and dangers, Patron saints of occupations and activities, Patron saints of places and Patron saints of ethnic groups) all should be "List of..." articles. I think the intended category here is saints of people by "what they do" (though that wording is even worse than what we have).

Long story short: I think we need to work out what the title here should be. I also think "prisoners" fits into the concept here. While I think it fits, I can certainly see someone else arguing that it doesn't fit the current (defective) title. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Would you support a move to something like "List of patron saints by occupation or activity"? I think "by" is better that "of" because it suggests we are sorting people by occupation instead of patron saints being patrons of the activities and occupations. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely better than what we have. Given that no one else seems to be watching this page, I'd say it's a go. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: and @SummerPhDv2.0: I am coming in late, but I disagree that this new title is a good title. While the previous title was not great, I think it's better than the current one. The new title is "List of patron saints by occupation and activity ". This sounds as if we are listing the saints by their occupation (and activity). So, for example, the (expected) list would look like this: these are all the patron saints who were actors; then, these are all the patron saints who were carpenters; then, these are all the patron saints who were doctors, etc. That is what the current title sounds like to me. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I guess that's true enough. The problem seems to be that we are having trouble finding a shorter way to say "people engaged in a given occupation or activity".

We do not have a list of patron saints of "occupations and activities" (firefighting, theft, playing Chutes and Ladders, etc.), rather they are the patron saints of those engaged in the activities and occupations (firefighters, thieves, Chutes and Ladders players). The closest that I have, "professionals and participants in activities", pretty much sucks.

I think one of the root problems here is out relative lack of sources. While Happy Squirrel's additions are great, we need to find sources that define the topic. For example, we have List of citrus fruits because there is no doubt that a "citrus fruit" is a thing. However, this list exists because someone wanted to list all of the various patron saints and decided that the full list could be broken up into several categories: "ailments, illness, and dangers", "occupations and activities", "ethnic groups" and "places". (I have doubts about some of those as well: do we have a patron saint of "the Irish" or a patron saint of Irish people?) Do we have sources dividing up the saints this way? What about patronages that don't fit one of those categories? Additionally, this list is not defined. Are we limited to Catholic saints? What about Saint John Coltrane, patron saint of all artists in the African Orthodox Church (and similar)?

Long story short, I think we need reliable sources breaking the list of saints up in some well-defined way or some other re-think of the system we inherited here. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I am only coming to this page by a fluke. So I do not often edit (or read) this page. And I have not read much of the history. Maybe we are focusing on the wrong thing? Maybe the title could be something like "list of saints by their patronages"? (If that even makes sense?) I am not sure of the precise definition of "patronage". But if we went along the lines of something like "list of saints by their patronages", then we would simply list the saint's name and -- alongside it -- whatever he is the patron saint of. So the list would say (as a hypothetical example): Saint Ann - patron saint of cancer; of Tennessee; of Mexicans; and of hairdressers. (Etc.) So the list would simply be by name of the saint. All of the "patronages" would follow. And it would not matter at all as to how we classify those patronages. Whether they are locations, diseases, activities, occupations, ailments, nationalities, who cares? They are just in the list near the name of the saint. Thoughts? Also: I think that the preposition is what seems to throw things off. Should it be list of saints for; or, list of saints by; or, list of saints of; etc.? Thanks. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I give it more thought, I am liking my idea more and more. Presently, we have several different "list of patron saint" articles (by ailment and disease; by occupation; by nationality; etc). That makes no sense. Look at my hypothetical example here: Saint Ann - patron saint of cancer; of Tennessee; of Mexicans; and of hairdressers. In this case, Saint Ann would be listed in 3 or 4 different Wikipedia articles: the article about ailments; the article about nationalities; the article about occupations; etc. I think that misses the point. I think that people would just want to know "what is Saint Ann the patron saint of"? They'd want the total list (i.e., a list of all of her "patronages"). They don't want a list of just her occupational patronages, or just her disease patronages, etc. They'd want to see the whole list, all in one place, regardless of what the classification of the patronage is. No? My point is: what's important is the name of the saint and what patronages that saint has; it is not important as to what the exact classification of those specific patronages are. (Which gets back to the whole question of: Is "prisoner" or "inmate" really an "occupation"? It doesn't matter. We'd just say that Saint XXX is the patron saint of prisoners.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is the Wikipedia definition of "patronage": patronage. And here is the Wiktionary definition: wikt:patronage. So, we are on the right track. We just need to tweak the wording. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, if any of you can think of a clearer title, I will be thrilled. The new title was just meant to indicate that a) this is a list and b) the saints are patrons of people, not occupations themselves. As for combining all the articles into one large saints by patronage, my main concern is size. The article would become difficult to work with. The Catholic encyclopedia has a similar list, but it is broken up by first letter and still manages an impressive bulk per letter. The sourcing matter is also a legitimate concern. Patron saints, at the base of it, are just saints that are typically asked to help in certain circumstances. If tommorrow all the Catholic teachers in Montreal suddenly decided that St Marguerite Bourgeoys was their patron saint, in a very real way she would be. We badly need more precise inclusion criteria. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: I agree that size would be an issue. I'd rather see a full list of saints broken down by the name of the saint, rather than by what he is the patron of. It is the name of the saint that is important (and what patronages are associated with him). Not important is the "classification" of the patronages (e.g., Is it an occupation? Is it a disease? Is it a geographical location?). Large size can be broken down by letters of the alphabet. One list for Saints "A" through "K" or whatever. At the end of the day, we will have the same exact information and lists that we have now -- they will just be categorized differently. So, the size will be the same. If not, we will generate a smaller size, because the saints will not be duplicated on several pages. What's wrong with that idea? List of saints "A" through "K". Then "List of saints "L" though "S". Or whatever. Also, I imagine there are plenty of sources. These patronages are not "secret". They are typically well known. I'd suspect many Catholic sources detail these. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be open to a reorganization by saint name. I think it would be better, but we would need a fairly good consensus and it would be a large task. For sourceing, some are very well sourced, some even liturgically (ex: St Blaise for throats). However, usually as the saint or patronage gets more obscure, the sourcing gets less reliable (ex: I'm part of a youth movement whose patron is St Thomas Moore, it's not secret, it's on our website, but there are no reliable third party sources, and it is in none of the standard lists). I think we all agree that throats and St Blaise should be in list, but small youth movements should not. However, there is a huge grey zone (ex: Joshua is often cited in blogs (even by intelligence personnel) as patron of spies, but not in any official list I can find). Should he be listed? What about an extremely well documented patron saint of a tiny hamlet which doesn't even have its own article? Particularly if we are going to combine lists, we need to figure out where we draw the line. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: Well, these are two very different issues and problems: (Task 1) how to organize the lists; and (Task 2) what to include on the lists. I'd say attack Task 1 first, and not worry about Task 2 yet. Deal with Task 2 after Task 1 is completed. I also don't think Task 1 is all that "large" of a task. I think it would simply be a matter of a lot of "cutting and pasting". We have all the information in all the various articles. We simply "cut and paste" all of that information, so that it is alphabetical by saint name. Then we establish the letter cut offs ("A" through "K"; then "L" through "S"; or whatever). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, can't we simply call the article "List of patron saints"? That seems easy enough. A saint will only be on the list if he is a patron saint of "something", whatever that "something" may be. Then, of course, the list will indicate what that "something" is for each saint (i.e., patron saint) on the list. That seems to solve a lot of problems. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say length is a concern. Also of concern is loss of function. I think the idea of the current breakdown is to make it easier to find, for example, who the patron saint of Paris, drummers or cancer sufferers. A quick glance at the appropriate article makes those questions easy. List of patronages by saint (Aaron - Cynthia), ...(David - Hyacynth), ...etc. is a bit more cumbersome.

As for inclusion criteria, I think it's part of the same question. Wide open criteria would include everything from long-term association covered in hundreds of years of sources to the patron saint of the Johnsons of Wyckoff, NJ, decided last Tuesday and announced in a small personal ad in their local paper. Tighter requirements would result in a far shorter list. The length of the full list would dictate how much the list would need to be broken up, if at all. Additionally, the name of the list would be question. If this is to be a list of Catholic saints the title would need to make that clear. The current list shows no reason for excluding Saint John Coltrane (of the African Orthodox Church), Saint MLK (Holy Orthodox Church in North America), etc. Before we can divide up a list into manageable chunks, I'd say we need to know what we are dealing with. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You stated: I think the idea of the current breakdown is to make it easier to find, for example, who the patron saint of Paris, drummers or cancer sufferers. A quick glance at the appropriate article makes those questions easy. List of patronages by saint (Aaron - Cynthia), ...(David - Hyacynth), ...etc. is a bit more cumbersome. Yes, I agree with that. But the opposite is also true. Let's say that I wanted to answer the question: "What is Saint XXX the patron saint of?". Then, I have to check three or four different lists. Is Saint XXX the patron saint for any diseases? Check article 1 to find out. Is Saint XXX the patron saint for any occupations? Check article 2 to find out. Is Saint XXX the patron saint for any geographic locations? Check article 3 to find out. So, obviously, that is more cumbersome. So, it's always a double-edged sword. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And this makes me think of another question. Let's say that we have a Saint, Saint ABC. And Saint ABC is not a patron saint of a disease; he is not a patron saint of an occupation; and he is not a patron saint of a geographic location. (In other words, his patronages do not fit into the criteria of the current 3 or 4 articles that we do have.) So, this patron saint would not be listed anywhere? That seems odd. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also: you stated: I think the idea of the current breakdown is to make it easier to find, for example, who the patron saint of Paris, drummers or cancer sufferers. A quick glance at the appropriate article makes those questions easy. List of patronages by saint (Aaron - Cynthia), ...(David - Hyacynth), ...etc. is a bit more cumbersome. Your example, however, is very biased. You mention Paris: we have an article about patron saints for geographic locations. You mention drummers: we have an article about patron saints for occupations. You mention cancer sufferers: we have an article about patron saints for illnesses. So you very conveniently "cherry picked" the three examples to correlate with three articles that we already have. So, with such convenient examples, of course it's easy to say that an alternative system would be cumbersome. What if I were looking for the patron saint of pregnant women, of orphans, of widows, of grandparents, of fathers, of mothers, of sisters, of identical twins, of adopted children, of family pets, of animals, etc.? That is, things that don't neatly fit into the three categories we already have? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: I am here to bury the current arrangement, not to praise it. That said, it has some merits which would be lost in one unified list, arbitrarily broken down into multiple lists (Saints A-F, G-M, etc.). The only ways around that (that I can think of) is to keep it as one list (which could easily be far too long) or have more than one list (one by name with arbitrary breaks and one split by what they are patrons of).

No matter what we decide, there are bound to be some patronages that will not be listed. Patron saint of Paris for several hundred years? Yeah, we can easily source that. Patron saint of a defunct town somewhere in Idaho? Good luck. This is all part of the reason I think we need to address the inclusion criteria now. We have some sources for some Catholic saints. A modicum of research would probably expand our list. AFAICS, we currently are limited to Catholic saints. Again, this is an open question. (Saints_in_Anglicanism#Modern_Anglican_saints?) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Both systems have their advantages and their disadvantages. I guess the "perfect" solution is to have two lists (one by saint name; one by patronage classification). Is that feasible? I am less worried about the sourcing. I am more worried about the overall "direction" of organization and/or reorganization, at the moment. The sourcing issue will always be around (and waiting to be solved) regardless of which way we decide to organize/reorganize. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if we can have one list that is a sortable list? One column would be name of saint, the other column would be what he is patron of. Then, a reader can use the "sort" command to either sort by name or sort by patronage. That would seem to solve all problems, no? The only issue is that it would be a very long list. And would likely need to be sub-divided. Which defeats the purpose of the sorting and brings us back to square one (how to sub-divide these items). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged Patron saints of ailments, illness, and dangers, Patron saints of places, Patron saints of ethnic groups and List of patron saints by occupation and activity as subject to the merger discussion, with a link to this section as discussion. Technically, we aren't suggesting merging them under this title, but this is the origin of the discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

2₵, If a reader wished to find out of what St. Anne is patron, he/she would go to the article on St. Anne. The same holds true for St. Joseph, St. Nicholas, etc. IMHO an alphabetical listing of all the saints and their respective patronages is both redundant and unnecessary. However, the difficulty with the current "list by occupation" is that it does not in fact list anyone by occupation, but alphabetically. So if you want to find the patron saint of beekeepers or waiters, one has to scan the entire list. In addition, I can off hand think of three separate patrons for beekeeping. Would it not help to sort out this particular page first? (I think the Patron Saints of Places page is not bad at all, due largely to Users LlywellynII, IoannesII, et al.) Mannanan51 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you make a valid point. If I want to find out what Saint Anne is the patron saint of, I can go to the Saint Anne article. However, what about the converse? If I want to find out "who is the patron saint of nurses?", then what page would I go to? I might go to List of patron saints by occupation and activity. And, once I get there, then what? (This alludes to the problem to which you yourself alluded.) Now, a further question. I want to find out, "who is the patron saint of twins?" or "who is the patron saint of grandmothers?" or "who is the patron saint of the internet?". Then, where do I go? Where do I even begin? So, yeah, it's somewhat helpful to have the three or four articles that we presently have (locations; occupations; ailments). But what about patronages that fall into some other category? A category other than locations or occupations or ailments? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In lieu of a current page for somewhat miscellaneous patronages then I would look to the topic page, i.e., perhaps there should be a line at "twins" or "grandmothers". Mannanan51 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mannanan51: I don't understand your reply at all. Can you please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think listing patron saints in articles about the patronage is necessarily a good idea (mostly for reasons of WP:UNDUE). A doubly sortable table, which could also hold informations on which churches honour this saint etc. is certainly technically possible but would be an utter mess to work with given the length of list we are talking about. I would tend to support breaking the list alphabetically by patronage and inserting a "patronage" section in each saint's article. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles about patron saints

Please add to this list, so that we can aggregate all of the lists in one place. We will see if our ideas above are even feasible. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Patron saints of ailments, illness, and dangers
2. Patron saints of places
3. Patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary
4. List of patron saints by occupation and activity

Possibly of interest:

• Patron saints of Naples
• Patron saints of ethnic groups
• Patron saints of Poland

SummerPhD^v2.0 00:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This subject would seem to beg for one of the celebrated "Lists of lists". Mannanan51 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have a list of those? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

List of lists of lists. I would think Lists of Patron Saint Lists would suffice. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be a discussion to form a list of lists, rather than a merge discussion. I'd oppose the merge, on the grounds that the current list have sufficiently distinct characteristics to justify them existing separately; I also oppose the creation of a list of lists, as that is what Category:Patron saints is for. Klbrain (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of patron saints by occupation and activity. 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/20080113194143/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintv02.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintv02.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) 05:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated occupations?

I noticed several different occupations that seemed to be repeated under different names, but with a different saint or group of saints. For instance, "saddlers" is another name for "saddle makers," but they're listed separately with unique saints for each. The same goes for "vintners" and "winemakers," and (I think) "chandlers," "candle makers," and "wax melters and refiners."

Some of the occupations only have very subtle distinctions, like "stonecutters"/"stonemasons" and "vine dresses"/"vine growers."

I'm not Catholic and don't know enough about saints to know how to handle this. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really an error (at least, on our part), many saints have just been given the same thing to patronise. --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Leader

Leadership is important and many people would like to take that along with them for the rest of there lives, please add some saints that we’re leaders 78.17.134.27 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

X & Y

Section X is there, but there is nothing in it. Section Y is not there, either. So we need to be consistent- either delete Section X, or add Section Y. I advocate the former. ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)