Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki

Requested move 5 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Although I see strong args both in opposition and in support, there appears to be a consensus in this debate to rename this article. This does not seem to be as much a matter of consistency as it is one of case-by-case handling of sensitive issues. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki → Catholic Diocese of Helsinki – According to the name it says on its website, as well as presented in the infobox. See also Finnish Wikipedia name, as well as that of several other language versions suggesting an article name update. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 06:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Consistency with Catholic Church. Catholic Encyclopedia has an article attacking the use of "Roman." "Catholic" is both more common and more official than "Roman Catholic." "Diocese of Helsinki" seems to be what they call themselves. Their website says "Katolinen Kirkko Suomessa" ("Catholic Church of Finland"). That is to say, no "Roman" in the name. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: New Advent is a highly POV website, which has published online the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia but does not necessarily reflect current thought to say the least. Roman Catholic: A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics"... We should not overreact to such agendas, but nor should we accept them naively. Andrewa (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Note. Other articles are at Roman Catholic Diocese of Copenhagen, Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki, Roman Catholic Diocese of Oslo, Roman Catholic Diocese of Reykjavík. I didn't check other regions. Dekimasuよ! 19:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The official name is a primary source and counts for little. The consistency argument is tenuous, given the other article names provided in the note above. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support – There's no ambiguity in dropping back to the common name; see news stories. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it really is the common name, agree. But that particular search gives me only two hits and they both appear to have conservative POVs which they seek to hide... neither of them has anything on their website which says who we are or about us. But we have articles on both, so let's see what we say. LifeSiteNews is (Roman) Catholic and conservative. Christian Today is more difficult, but editor Ruth Gledhill while an award-winning journalist appears conservative, and both her article and the one on Christian Today are flagged as having COI problems. Not the best sources. No change of !vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per convention of Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Nordic Europe, where 7 of 9 articles use "Roman Catholic". Either rename them all, or none. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. We have the worldwide church at Catholic Church, while the Finnish church is at Catholic Church in Finland. New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) has an article entitled "Finland, the Catholic Church in." According to this article, "Ecclesiastically, Finland has formed the Catholic Diocese of Helsinki (Swedish Helsingfors) since 1955, which diocese is immediately subject to the Holy See." As WP:TITLES says, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Part of our problem here is that we currently fail to distinguish between catholic church (a politically leading claim) and Catholic Church (a proper name, and unobjectionable). And it's not a discussion that will go away. I should disclose I am from a protestant tradition, see this off-Wikipedia essay for my views on the matter. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • As the article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia explains, the term "Roman Catholic" originates with the Anglican clergy. The Anglican version of the Nicene Creed says, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." That is to say, the Anglican church is "catholic" (not Catholic). Finland is Lutheran and we Lutherans say, "And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church." So we're not trying to take the catholic away from the Catholic Church. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Agree that is not the intent, but it's the practical result, simply because Wikipedia does not distinguish between catholic Diocese of Helsinki and Catholic Diocese of Helsinki as article titles. The second is unproblematic.
      • Agree that the term "Roman Catholic" originates with the Anglican clergy. And the term Christian was also originally a term of derision. But times have changed since these terms were coined, and so has English. There have even been changes since 1913, notably owing to Pope John XXIII and Pope Francis... neither of whom are popular on either of the (Roman) Catholic websites cited above, I notice. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the general trend to remove the unnecessary "Roman" verbiage at Wikipedia articles. The verbiage is unnecessary here for disambiguation or any other purpose. Renaming them all is fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As above, the problem is purely when an article title begins with Catholic/catholic. But in those cases (and this is one), as we fail to differentiate between capital and small C as the first character of an article title, we end up with a highly controversial and POV title. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not true. There’s nothing “highly controversial” about using the common name.—Cúchullain ^t/c 03:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree that There’s nothing “highly controversial” about using the common name. But using catholic church (uncapitalised) to refer to the (Roman) Catholic Church is highly controversial. That was my point. Andrewa (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s not relevant, the term wouldn’t be uncapitalized in this title or anywhere else. And uncapitalized “catholic diocese of Helsinki would be meaningless.—Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree that catholic diocese of Helsinki would be undesirable here, but not meaningless, that's over the top. Both it and catholic Diocese of Helsinki are perfectly good English, but POV. In the current title Catholic is capitalised, and therefore NPOV. But if this move goes ahead, the capitalisation will be undefined. It's more of a problem with other articles, and there have been some very bad precedents, such as catholic church and catholic both redirecting to Catholic Church. [1] [2] But that last one is problematic; There's no obvious solution. On the other hand maintaining NPOV here is harmless; The claims that Roman Catholic is not used by good Catholics (even Popes) for self-identification are political and fabricated, and also rather out of date, fortunately. See my essay Roman or Catholic or neither or both. It's not be a show-stopper but it is relevant in a rather difficult area. Andrewa (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You are seriously overthinking this. The fact is that "Catholic Diocese of Helsinki" - which is the common form, the form used by the diocese itself writing in English, and the form consistent with Catholic Church in Finland, Catholic Church, etc. - would not be confused for any other topic. Even if ostensible confusion with "catholic diocese of Helsinki" were a problem, it's a wash, as no one would use that phrase as a search term for any other article. As such thus there's no reason to keep the "Roman" verbiage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps (at the risk of further personalising this) you are underthinking? The claim that there's no reason to keep the "Roman" verbiage is quite simply false, see #Discussion below. Some (not all) of the reasons for keeping Roman are subtle but important, and all of them are unanswered above. The subtle ones I am raising are not lost on those who publish websites such as those cited above in support of this move. Ideally, we should balance these reasons against the (also valid) reasons for removing the word Roman. We can't do that by simply dismissing good faith arguments as overthinking, we need to give reasons.

And just BTW, catholic diocese of Helsinki appears to be your own invention (which you have now raised twice, and I answered the first time). It doesn't appear in my list below, and seems irrelevant to me. Agree that no one would use that phrase as a search term for any other article. So...??? Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So there's no risk of confusion between this title and anything else, which means it's, well, not a problem. The "Catholic" form is the common version, obviously the one preferred by the subject itself, and consistent with the main articles Catholic Church in Finland, Catholic Church, and hundreds of others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So there's no risk of confusion between this title and anything else... that seems a complete non sequitur. The point was that the title catholic diocese of Helsinki is purely your own invention, and irrelevant to my argument. Neither I nor anybody else is proposing to decapitalise the "D", but you seem to be suggesting that someone is. It doesn't even make sense as a straw man.

The "Catholic" form is the common version, obviously the one preferred by the subject itself, and consistent with the main articles... Thank you for that summary, but it adds nothing. There are arguments both ways, but just to answer those in your summary, the proposed title is ambiguous regarding whether it's The "Catholic" form or the catholic form, the subject itself is a primary source, and the consistency with articles on other Dioceses is possibly more important. All of these answers were also given above (by various contributors), of course.

And maybe this string should be in #Discussion rather than the Survey? Just to make it a bit easier for the closer and any still to !vote? (Yes, I know I started it here!) Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The Finnish apparently don’t do the “Roman”. I guess they are very far from non-Roman catholics. The church website doesn’t do Roman, and for evidence of self-titling, the official website is the best source and is not excluded or even discouraged for content sourcing reasons, source independence is not required for such a question. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support in this case as it is what the local diocese refers to itself as, and there is no other diocese or eparchy that it could be confused with. As all diocesan articles are neccesarily extremely local, it COMMONNAME does not refer to the general concept of RC vs. C, but of what the subject of the particular article is referred to by. The self-identification goes a long way towards satisfying COMMONNAME. On the broader RC/C question, I generally oppose a one-size fits all solution: I think every article should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the anti-C arguments don't hold water. On others, they might (also, the lowercase vs. uppercase argument is completely irrelevant to the naming of a local diocese, as it is a proper name. It may be relevant to other debates in the larger Catholic naming dispute, but it is not here.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I see this has been relisted. Wikipedia is not all that consistent in our treatment of the names of the (Roman) Catholic Church and probably never will be, and this isn't even a particularly important example.

But perhaps it's a good one to discuss for that very reason. The addition of Roman doesn't do any harm, and the claims above that it does are weak and at times very strange indeed, but they illustrate the various feelings Wikipedians (self included) have on the matter.

Nor does removing it do a great deal of harm, but it does some. Because of the way the software is configured (and it's that way for good reasons to do with linking in running text), we really have three article names to consider:

• Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki (current)
• Catholic Diocese of Helsinki (proposed)
• catholic Diocese of Helsinki (problematical)

and it's the third that does the (slight) damage. This implies that the Diocese of Helsinki is catholic (small "c"), that is "universal", and that any churches within the diocese (the area) that aren't part of the Diocese (the organisation) aren't even churches. Which is of course exactly what the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article implies as well. This rather extreme POV is one we should avoid either supporting or contradicting, even slightly, if possible.

The phrase Roman Catholic is these days a common self-description among (Roman) Catholics, despite its POV history. It enables us to be precise rather than just concise. It's unnecessary "Roman" verbiage [3] only if the capital is explicitly on the "C" of Catholic, and that's not the case here. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. This is yet another example why a centralised discussion would be helpful at Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church) (which could be converted to an essay instead). Arguments just keep on being repeated every single time on virtually an unlimited amount of talk pages. The same arguments. Again and again. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree that centralised discussion would be helpful. This RM should be input to that discussion of course. See #Centralised discussion. Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Centralised discussion

Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church), suggested above as the place for centralised discussion, currently is listed as a failed proposal, it's not clear from that page or its history who decided this and why but Wikipedia talk:Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention appears to be the the answer.

There has been some follow-up discussion there, most recently last December. Is this the best place to discuss these things? ISTM it might be better to start again.

There has also been a merge proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology since last September. Its talk page is relevant.

Others? Relevant archives? Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology into Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church), while making that page an essay rather than a (rejected) naming conentions proposals, at least for the time being. I would suggest even this section here "Centralised discussion" should be moved to a new section in Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church) for convenience. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's just muddying the waters. Leave the failed proposal as that, and start again. Similarly, leave the WikiProject subpage alone for now, there's no discussion on its talk page and this needs wider consensus than the WikiProject in any case. Perhaps it (and similar pages) should be flagged in some way to better indicate the authority they do or do not have.

Copy this somewhere by all means, but it should also remain here as part of the RM discussion, with a clear link from wherever it's copied to.

I'd suggest that Talk:Catholic is probably the place for this centralised discussion, as the corresponding article namespace page currently also a redirect is IMO the clearest current example of a need for change. This would mean not redirecting the talk page as at present, which also seems a good thing to me.

We have a good DAB at Catholic (disambiguation) (which needs some updates owing to several recent page moves!) and good articles (but not Good Articles!) at Catholicity and Catholic (term) (some redundancy but let's not go there just now). We can build on these. Andrewa (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

See User:Andrewa/Roman or catholic and of course its talk page, any interested in a broader discussion.

Have I hit the balance, do you think? If so, what's the next step? And either way, there's the talk page! TIA Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion rather drifted away now. Anywhow, no, I don't see any convincing arguments for anything but what most users have listed themselves as supporting above. Furthermore, there are already several essays on the subject. Beyond this individual talk page, something of a centralised, collaborated document would be benedicial. But that's another discussion than this individual talk page for now. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident or anyone else concerned, please add wikilinks to these several essays to User:Andrewa/Roman or catholic#Other essays, or just mention them here and I will.

Or, is there already a list of such discussions? There should be. Otherwise we just keep reinventing the wheel, as you suggest. If so, again please provide a wikilink or diff. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Some lateral thinking

See User talk:Andrewa/Roman or catholic#Some lateral thinking. Andrewa (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 February 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for any move after much-extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 14:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Diocese of Helsinki → ? – This move (and the broader, associated moves), are to deal with a small, but longstanding problem in the Catholic diocese pages. Ever since Roman Catholic Church the move has been to depreciate the naming convention from Roman Catholic to Catholic. However, most of the diocese pages remain as Roman Catholic diocese of X to reflect their identity as latin rite parishes. Thus the name has a functional, (and quite useful purpose). This has been extended to other rites, ie, Byzantine Catholic, and allows for disambiguation, ie, two dioceses that occupy the same physical area, (or city), but differ in their rites.

Therefore, I propose this solution. For all Latin rite dioceses that are currently not named Roman Catholic diocese of X per the naming convention, that they will be changed back to Roman Catholic diocese of X. I am happy to do all the moves manually with the help of administrators to deal with the page histories, and with the redirects, etc. When we did this before Anthony Applewhite helped me do this.

This would resolve the haphazard approach of previous requested moves that have resulted in some pages being Catholic diocese of X, while 95 percent of the 3k diocese articles are Roman Catholic diocese of X. Unlike some of the other changes which were cosmetic, the naming convention Roman Catholic conveys additional meaning that is lost from the change to Catholic diocese of X.

This discussion has long been percolating over individual move discussions, so I think it's finally time to have this discussion here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this discussion. Can you provide a list of the pages that would be affected by the proposed change? BD2412 T 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a long list. It also applies to List space (list of dioceses), and Template space (Template for Catholic dioceses). We're talking several hundred pages in all, out of all of these spaces. These are all navigation tools, that are more effective with consistent naming conventions. The general approach has been top down - that Roman Catholic church -> Catholic church and the articles downstream should reflect that. The problem is that adoption hasn't really happened and some pages will be one or the other. WRT to dioceses, the lists/templates should be Roman Catholic dioceses of X unless there's a preponderance of dioceses that deviate from this (ie, Syro-Malabar), etc, as there are in a few places in the world. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move back to Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki per nom, and support other page renames where necessary per nom. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• The idea that "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic", as commonly used, convey different things is false. Srnec (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The idea that "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic", as commonly used, never convey different things is false. PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Wrong. As commonly used they are synonyms, but they are at times used differently, especially by certain types of Catholic. This is not a sound basis for disambiguating articles. The idea that "Roman Catholic" conveys to the average, educated reader "Roman-rite Catholic" is not true. Srnec (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. After clear consensus at Catholic Church as well as related articles, going back several years, that the Roman Catholic Church is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Catholic Church", and that it is WP:COMMONNAME to call it thus, including in the RM above on this very page, there is suddenly a proposal to reverse all that? If there are diocese articles that haven't followed the parent article Catholic Church in being renamed, then those are the ones that need to be actioned, not this and others that have already been brought into line per WP:CONSISTENCY. The only cases where I can imagine the qualifier "Roman" might be needed is in some cities where the eastern Catholic churches are prevalent, so exceptions could be maintained there, but not in the vast majority of locales.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This one will probably never go away! Whichever way we go is POV. The title Roman Catholic is offensive to some, as they regard their church as truly Catholic and the One True Church (which are roughly equivalent statements). There's even an example of this thinking above, in the claim that The idea that "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic", as commonly used, convey different things is false. However other (Roman) Catholics use the phrase without a problem, recognising I suppose that Catholic on its own can be ambiguous. I think that the lesser of the two evils is to use the unambiguous term, but I should disclose that I am a member of a Protestant church (which I of course believe is both part of the "true" church and of the "Holy Catholic Church" described in the Apostle's Creed, and several recent Popes seem to support this view). Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Andrewa: This one will go away if people stop trying to turn back the clock after we painstakingly established a rough consensus on this. I can accept that it's a line call on whether the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC trumps the WP:PRECISE criterion in this particular case, given the possible ambiguities. But we made that call a couple of years ago with the move to Catholic Church, and it's time to move on and fully implement that decision, instead of continuously trying to flip-flop between the two. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  Consensus can change and it was as you say a rough consensus. And I think my views on Primary Topic are well known! This is IMO another example of that concept proving unhelpful. I think that some degree of flip-flop in this case may be inevitable. The trick is not to let it distract us unnecessarily. And as William Barclay once observed, turning back the clock may be a very good idea if you discover that the clock is set to the wrong time (assuming it's not a chiming clock of the sort that must always be turned forwards). Andrewa (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  To editor Amakuru: I'm curious – may I hear your thoughts about this discussion on my talk page? PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Paine Ellsworth: you hit the nail on the head in that discussion and thanks for challenging this. The consensus at the moment is to use Catholic, not Roman Catholic, and moving pages against that is disruptive. If the consensus really has changed, as Andrew suggests above, then the place to argue that is through a Requested move at Talk:Catholic Church, not by trying to overturn it through a small WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here that doesn't match the site wide decision on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think the nom agrees that the site wide decision to melt away each and every RC is correct. They seem to think that there are some cases, such as this case, when the "Roman Catholic..." title is correct, and there are some cases when "Catholic" without the "Roman" predab adj. will do. So is it right to apply the omission of "Roman" all the way across the board? or is it more correct to think that there are some cases when the use of "Roman Catholic" is more appropriate than just "Catholic"? I know that consistency is a valid concern, however if it's more correct to leave off the "Roman" in some cases and include it in other cases, perhaps that should trump consistency? PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, same as last time, Helsinki Catholics are not into the "Roman" prefix, yes there is subtle meaning difference, WP:TITLECHANGES applies, and general oppose to all half-baked nominations ("→ ?") please get your proposal sorted before launching. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fail to see how WP:LOCALCONSENSUS trumps WP:CONSENSUS in this case. Although it could be useful with a wider, more categorical discussion. PPEMES (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

unexpected move

User:Buidhe, why did you move this page?

00:30, 16 May 2020‎ Buidhe (talk · contribs)‎ m 6,631 bytes 0‎ Buidhe moved page Draft:Move/Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki to Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki without leaving a redirect: Round-robin history swap step 3 using pageswap

00:30, 16 May 2020‎ Buidhe (talk · contribs)‎ m 6,631 bytes 0‎ Buidhe moved page Catholic Diocese of Helsinki to Draft:Move/Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki without leaving a redirect: Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, It was requested at RM/TR. However, I can see now that the requestor was not acting in good faith and will reverse the move. buidhe 06:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: No, actually, the request was made in good faith. I was working on diocesan articles, noticed that this was the only one out of thousands that didn't follow a particular title format (for no discernible reason), tried to move, was unable, and submitted an RM/TR. But apparently there's some drama surrounding this particular page that I wasn't aware of, and which I have no vested interest in. Thanks for your willingness to help, and sorry for the trouble. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 17:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Catholic Diocese of Helsinki → Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki – Every other diocesan article is of the format "Roman Catholic XXX". There is no reason that this article should be an exception. Elizium23 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support for consistency and precision. Consistency: As of now, this is literally the only article (among thousands) for a present-day Latin Catholic diocese that doesn't follow the "Roman Catholic" naming convention. Compare: Catholic Diocese of vs. Roman Catholic Diocese of. There's nothing particularly special about this diocese that justifies it being the lone outlier in this regard. Precision: This diocese, like the other Latin Catholic dioceses, doesn't broadly encompass all Catholics in its geographic area, but specifically Catholics who worship according to the Roman Rite, hence "Roman Catholic." Jdcompguy (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.