Talk:Peter of Rates

Untitled

This article should be moved to Peter of Rates, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), where it says: "don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation;" Please see: Paul of Tarsus for an example. Thanks. Joaopais 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• see Saint Peter and that's nonsense, he is known by this name and is mostly a mythical figure. I think it is a pretty bad idea to name Saint Paul as Paul of Tarsus. And I'm not even Catholic... and I think that is pure nonsense. Dr. is ok not to be added, but saint nops, people only know Saints by "saint...".Try to do that in Portuguese wikipedia with Santiago. What will you do, will you put "Iago"?!?!--Pedro 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not worried with the Pt. version. This policy I'm talking about is in the English wikipedia. And, of course I wouldn't put Iago... Please be more calm in your answers. I didn't move the article disrespectfuly, I'm just trying to find the best solution for this to be according to Wikipedia standards. If you see List of Saints, in the letter A you have 10 saints with the article title in the form "Saint Name" and 38 without "Saint". When the saint is known as "Saint John of Place" it is usual to use John of Place, as the article name (Adalbert of Magdeburg, Augustine of Canterbury, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Joan of Arc), with few exceptions (Saint Anthony of Padua). When the name used is just one it is common to use "Saint Name": Saint Peter, Saint Jude, Saint Patrick, Saint Andrew, Saint James. The reason for Saint Paul to be in the form Paul of Tarsus, is that there are many Saint Pauls. What do you think? Do we change it to Peter of Rates? Joaopais 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm calm... why do you think I’m stressed? I just think that's nonsense... so no. I don't think so, no one knows the saint as Pedro de Rates, they did it in Portuguese version because of the town, just to disambig, which in fact it isnt also correct, as "Pedro de Rates" or "Peter of Rates" has no references, and that's the problem. I bet you can’t find a source without the "santo" nor in the net, neither on paper even if 1000 yrs has passed on. Sorry but I largely disagree, that’s an attempt to NPOV that just shows prejudice over people’s habits. Wikipedia doesn’t make rules over those issues. The issue over Santo is awfully unlike the Dr. one. And BTW there are many Pedros in Rates today ;). And São Pedro de Rates is like Santiago, you cannot break it is a name rather than just a qualifier. The vatican never gave that qualifier to this saint, he always had that! In fact, we dont even know if his real name is Pedro, the fact is that another legendary saint found his body, and said, he is Saint Peter of Rates. SO you'r not only adding POV, you are adding a serious error by creating something else, a supposed "Peter of Rates". In all wikipedias policies, the article stays on the most common name. And this only has this name. --Pedro

Wikipedia is made of consensus, if consensus was reached when discussing whether or not the qualifier "Saint" should be included in the article's titles, we should respect it. The qualifier should not be used, so, we should remove it from the title. I don't understand the problem with the fact that nobody knows him as "Peter of Rates", of course not, but we can redirect "Saint Peter of Rates" to it. It's about whether we keep the standards or not. Obviously, the article will start by saying that Peter of Rates was a Saint, just like in Francis of Assisi. Cheers! Mário 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)