Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of titular churches/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of titular churches in Rome/archive1)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of titular churches

edit

List of titular churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the titular churches assigned to Roman Catholic cardinals, past and present. I have attempted to incorporate advice from my previous nomination (List of living cardinals) into this one to improve it greatly, now meeting the FLC criteria. While there are several redlinks in the article, all of them have been duly interlanguage-linked to the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article. Comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jmnbqb (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jmnbqb
  • In the first sentence "...cleric who is created a cardinal...", I would prefer a different word other than "created" (unless that's a specific term for this application). Maybe "appointed as a Cardinal" but it seems awkward to me as someone not that familiar with Catholicism.
  • Insert comma with "...and to the Pope, its bishop, and head of the Church..."
  • Keep capitalization consistent, I notice that "Cardinal" is always capitalized in the article "Cardinal protector" but not in this list
  • In the 3rd paragraph, "Currently" could be changed to a "As of" this date
  • Is there a reason why some dates have month and day while others don't? I can understand the early AD dates, but the recent dates would definitely have month and day available.
  • "Santissimo Redentore e Sant'Alfonso in Via Merulana" line in table is messed up
  • There is a random parenthesis in the "Sant'Agnese in Agone" line
  • Is there a reason why the "Santa Maria in Portico Octaviae" line has a term in square brackets instead of parentheses?
  • I don't know what the "I. century" date means

Overall it looks like you put a ton of work into this. Good job! If you get a chance, I would appreciate a review on one of the FLCs I have listed. Jmnbqb (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is the official term used, yes.
  2. Reworded (partly to avoid serial comma).
  3. Properly speaking, the word "cardinal" is a common noun and as such should be normally uncapitalised (see Cardinal (Catholic Church) and elsewhere). It seems that the Cardinal protector article is using capitalisation inconsistently; this article, on the other hand, utilises the correct style.
  4. Paragraph rephrased, to also include the vacant titular churches under the "As of".
  5. Dates specified, with early AD dates incorporated in {{circa}}.
  6. Fixed.
  7. Fixed.
  8. This corresponds to the entry for "Santa Maria in Portico [Campitelli]" higher up in the article, with the unofficial disambiguator placed in square brackets, to differentiate it from Octaviae.
  9. First century (this has been replaced).
@Jmnbqb: Thanks for your comments; my apologies for the delay in response.
No problem, thanks for addressing. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*List REALLY needs a column with location (address, coordinates, neighborhood). Is "supressed" the opposite of established? Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: 1. Thus added (with a corresponding key above). 2. In Catholic parlance, yes. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, at least now it is easy to see that all titles are within Rome. Why are half of the diocheses outside of Rome, and how come 3 patriarchates are listed here and none of the other 5ish? Nergaal (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: The suburbicarian dioceses are simply those that are directly subject to Rome (the Holy See) and are located in its vicinity; this doesn't mean that they (in this case Sabina-Poggio Mirteto) are necessarily located in the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital (RM), which is a purely political jurisdiction and administrative subdivision. (Technically, the ones denoted with RM aren't in the city of Rome proper either.) Regarding patriarchates, this article lists only those whose patriarchs are currently cardinals (two from the Maronite Church and one from the Coptic Catholic Church). New cardinal patriarchs will be added to the article when they are created by the Pope. I hope that this clears up matters somewhat. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rome in terms of the Catholic church has a specific meaning, and it has a different meaning when it comes to the authorities in Italy. That's why, unclarities should be explained in such an article, which talks about the ?diocese of Rome?. TBH, a map overlaying the range of this diocese vs administrative borders would be helpful. If not, at least should be a clarifying distinction between the two. Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe even mention Diocese_of_Rome#Suffragan_sees. Nergaal (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Suburbicarian dioceses aside, I think it's clear that the titular churches (titles and deaconries) are all located within both the city of Rome and the Diocese of Rome. Most of the potential confusion (for suburbicarian dioceses, anyway) probably comes from the locations provided in the article, in which administrative divisions are provided for each entry, each of which constitutes a separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction. I've added some further clarifications to the article (in the lead and in the first two sections), but I don't believe that a full, in-depth distinction is strictly required, as the two definitions of Rome seem to be largely similar. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely unaware of the jargon inside the Catholic church, so I finally opened Titular church: 1) is their main function as an office for the 120ish cardinals in the council? 2) what makes this list not a fork of the non-list (can titular church become an FA without this list)? 3) is the correct title "of Rome" or no "in Rome" at all? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: 1. Cardinals used to be just special priests of Rome who were attached to a specific church. This tradition is now continued by current cardinals being assigned to a church in Rome, a role which is largely nominal (the churches have their own parish priests and the cardinals lead their own (arch)dioceses somewhere else). Titular churches are still considered a key component of being a cardinal of the Catholic church. Not all Roman churches are titular churches but all titular churches are Roman (see 3). 2. I once tried to merge the two articles but quickly got opposed. The rationale is ostensibly that the Titular church article is for a general discussion of the topic (one that is admittedly incomplete), whereas this article is purely a list for them (one that is complete). 3. Either-or, really. Titular churches are directly associated with Rome, after all. Even without "in Rome" in the title, we would probably still need something like "of cardinals" to make it more precise. I think that the current title is the one that has been used since its creation, which probably seems fine enough for us to keep. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 23:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) "all titular churches are Roman" means "in Rome" part of the title is redundant AND confusing (I assumed there are others outside Rome because of it). 2) dealing with confusions in 1) should at least in part alleviate this. 3) why do you need to make it more precise if all titular ones are in Rome, and all are assignable to cardinals?
I think "a cleric who is created a cardinal" is translated poorly; do you mean ordained? Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: I feel the solution, then, after some consideration, would be to eliminate the "in Rome" portion of the title, as that seems to cause most confusion in this regard, to yield simply "List of titular churches". Would this be satisfactory?
The correct terminology, as used by the Vatican, is that cardinals are created, not ordained, which is the proper term for deacons, for priests and for bishops. A cardinal is not a separate category of clergy, but is rather a title conferred on certain clerics by the Pope, thus being created. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 07:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"List of titular churches" would probably work best. Is the "created" nomenclature in Italian/Latin, or in English? Some things translate poorly. Anyways, saying "title of cardinal is conferred together with a titled church" would probably be ok. Nergaal (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Done as suggested. The Vatican uses the nomenclature in English (see here and elsewhere). Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried to rewrite the first paragraph to, IMO, more clearly explain the whole setup. Right now it is still very confusing. I think the intro paragraph about death can be removed (placed in the non-list article), and add a bit more info: 1) what is the exact relationship between suburbican diochese and a TC? 2) how exactly are the 3 patriarchs different than the other 5 to be covered here; 3) clearly say that all TI are located within M. 4) exactly how are deaconries different? Nergaal (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: While I do appreciate your efforts to improve the content, I would kindly suggest that it would possibly be better if I were to make the main alterations to the article, seeing that I seem to have more knowledge of the topic at hand and as the original nominator. The paragraph about deaths and transfers can help explain the existence of the term pro hac vice in the article and shed some insight on how they are assigned, which I feel is more useful information than, for example, the biretta or the cardinalatial ring. 1. Suburbicarian dioceses, strictly speaking, are not titular churches, but are included here because they serve a similar purpose to them. 2. The three (actually two) patriarchates are no more special except for the fact that their patriarchs or patriarchs emeritus are current cardinals of the church. 3. That can be done in the lead. 4. Deaconries are assigned to cardinal deacons, whereas titles are assigned to cardinal priests. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a non-involved reader I do not understand what is the list supposed to cover, since the current introduction does a terrible job of explaining. It is full of jargon not easily understandable to a non-expert, and as such does not pass wp:FL?. It is possible that this is a case of wp:fork since it is unclear to me how much of the subject can be understood outside of reading the entire titular church article. Nergaal (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: In the mutual interest of bringing this article up to FL status, what exactly are the main sections or parts that you would like elaborated in this article? Perhaps we may come to a consensus about how best to improve it, an outcome that does not sound too technical nor too repetitive of other articles. If I was a bit rash above, I apologise. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly tried to point out where the list falls short on the jargon aspect, and I tried to rewrite the intro from a 3rd-person perspective. Feel free to rewrite what I left behind into a form that is both technically accurate and digestible to a non-expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: I have now incorporated some improvements and clarifications into the article; hopefully you can find it more palatable. Further comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nergaal, has Ravenpuff satisfied your comments? Ravenpuff, I think it's a real shame that you haven't incorporated images of each of these churches in the article, seems like that would greatly enrich the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: That could be something that I could add, though I'm not sure by how much it would inflate an already expansive table. There's already a Commons link at the bottom of the page. Also, I'm fairly sure that some churches don't have pictures existing on Wikimedia, especially the demolished suppressed ones. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the introduction is far more readable to a non-expert right now than it was before. Still feels a bit clunky to read (probably because it's written as a ESL writer), but it is probably passable. I don't have any strong pro or against opinion for this FLC. I personally prefer some kind of stats and/or map, but that is outside of FL? requirements. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: There is a box to the right in the "Key to locations" section that can launch an interactive map to view or that can allow one to download the coordinates in the article. As for statistics, there is a paragraph in the lead on the current numbers. Are there any other statistics that you feel would be suitable for inclusion here? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Map is nice, but shows how difficult would be to get a meaningful pic of the map. Side-question: why are oldest titles only from 1983? Is there something preventing getting a title before an age? And why is Santa Maria in Cosmedin still vacant? Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The patriarchates of Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinals are considered to be their titles" is unclear. How do they get to be cardinals, and the other 5 aren't? Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: To be honest, many Roman churches are titular churches anyway; there are probably too many of them to properly display on a static map of the city. 1. I presume that you're looking at the "Since" column for the 1983 figure; the column shows when the cardinal was appointed to that title (the "Established" column shows when the title was first used as a titular church). Since there are no living cardinal priests who were created cardinals before then, the column only shows dates from 1983. 2. I have no idea of why Santa Maria in Cosmedin is still vacant. It is still officially listed as a titular church, though. 3. Eastern patriarchs are created cardinals in the same process as any other bishop or archbishop: the Pope decides. Currently, only three patriarchs of two patriarchates enjoy the privileges of a cardinal. If/when others are created cardinals, they will be added to the table like any other cardinal. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think 3) needs some kind of explanation in the list - unless I am missing it. Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: The phrase in question is now reworded to make it clearer. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some other reviewer is fine with the potential forking issue, and with the copyediting in the list, I would be fine supporting this - looks quite a lot better than a the start. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, Nice list, but there are a few aspects that are not used in featured lists. For example " this list includes 230 titular churches," should be "there are 230 titular churches", and "The status of certain churches as basilicas are also indicated." is confusing, and I'm not sure what it means, and if it refers to information in the list it should be as a note or in the table itself. Also the Key to Locations section should be incorporated into the list or legend itself, instead of an explanatory section prior to the list itself. A good table does not require the reader to constantly refer to a previous section explaining the table. Is there a way to incorporate this information into the list itself? Either by making the abbreviations more clear or by adding a note instead? Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: 1. Fixed "This list includes…" as suggested. 2. The statement on basilicas refers to the fact that certain entries in the table have "(basilica)" next to them; should it be replaced with something else to indicate this? 3. The "Key to locations" section is effectively a legend; it forms its own section because the list itself is split over multiple sections ("Suburbicarian dioceses" to "Suppressed deaconries"), to all of which the key applies. Adding {{Abbr}} tooltips to the tables could help, I suppose. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, and I can think of how to better incorporate the text of the "key" section into the list itself. Even though a lot of work has been put into this article, it still has more to go for an outsider. For example, what is "suppressed" mean? Is there a wikilink or a definition? Maybe some sections could use a one sentence description of what the table contains? There are also other instances of "in this table", "This section shows" which are all tautological and have been out of fashion for all featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: I have added a brief explanation of suppression in the lead and have removed tautologies as suggested. The descriptions of each table are also probably generally self-evident and don't require further explanation for clarification. How would you go about incorporating the key into the list sections, seamlessly? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to have stalled out, after 3 months with no supports, and unless there's some movement soon will be closed. @Mattximus: Have you seen Ravenpuff's question above? @Jmnbqb: you closed your comments some time back; are you willing to support? --PresN 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list itself is technically sound. It just seems to use jargon from an ESL perspective, so if anybody is willing to copyedit that aspect it should be a fine FL. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to support as this time. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As someone who is somewhat familiar and works on the cardinalite, I'm going to have to oppose this:
    • The list has issues with WP:V. Just looking at the section on the suburbicarian dioceses, it makes claims to the approximate date of their founding. On a spot check, none of the sources say this. Our articles on the suburbicarian sees themselves don't list actual dates (they list approximate times of founding), and even if they did, there is nothing in them to verify that either.
    • Also not quite sure that the suburbicarian sees are within the scope of this list: they only became titular relatively recently (i.e. the cardinal bishops were until relatively recently also the actual diocesan bishops), and they have usually been a distinct category from the tituli of the cardinal priests and deacons.
    • Patriarchates of Eastern Catholic Churches are not titular sees (as the individual Cardinal Patriarchs exercise actual jurisdiction over them, not just titular). They have also never been considered part of the Roman tituli, and previously they were also assigned Roman titular churches (as an example, see Gregorio Pietro Agagianian, who was Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia while also being cardinal-priest of San Bartolomeo all'Isola.) You will need a source classifying the cardinal patriarchates of Eastern Catholic Churches as being Roman tituli as this could also be very controversial in implying that the sui iuris churches are not on equal status (i.e. that these patriarchates are tituli of the mother see of the Latin Church). You do a decent job trying to explain this in the prose, but the issue is that the title implies it is within the scope, which they aren’t.
    • Spot checked the titular churches of the cardinal priest priests. Have the same verifiability issue, and some of the dates directly contradict the articles that they link to (ex. Santi Apostoli, Rome claims to have been created as a tituli c. 112. The article claims the groundbreaking occurred in the 6th century, and only lists cardinal priests starting in the 12th. Given, some of these aren't verified as well, but it raises issues when you are claiming it was founded approximately 400 years earlier) I'm not going to go through each one, but Santi Apostoli is a pretty good example here.
    • Dates of founding of deaconaries are also not verifiable.
Sorry to have to do this, but from just a brief spot check, I'm not comfortable with supporting this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: It seems like your main concern with the article would be the dates of establishment of the titular churches. On account of their unverifiability, could it be resolved simply by removing such data from the article? Furthermore, on the topic of suburbicarian dioceses and of patriarchates, the prose already points out that they aren't titular churches per se (which you did point out) but I would tend to consider them within the scope of inclusion because they are to cardinal bishops what titles are to cardinal priests and deaconries are to cardinal deacons, so it would seem more appropriate to me if all cardinals were featured in such a way in the article, as being a jurisdiction conferred to them; they are also generally listed together in the CIC regarding cardinals. The same reasoning generally applies to the cardinal patriarchs. Regarding the example of Agagianian above, it seems like the concept of cardinal patriarchs' patriarchates being considered their titles as cardinals only came about relatively recently (likely the 1983 CIC). Can. 350 § 3 says:

Eastern Patriarchs within the College of Cardinals have their patriarchal see as a title.

By this, I feel that they merit inclusion in the article, even though they aren't "titular churches" in a way like how Roman churches are. I hope that this clears some ambiguities. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not do a full review because the verifiability problem was so large that it would lead to an oppose, so I’d need to further look at it beyond that if that problem was fixed.
In terms of scope, the Easteen Catholic patriarchs are way outside of it for the reasons I mentioned above, but I’ll go into more detail now: the scope here is not people, i.e. the cardinals themselves. The scope is titular churches. Eastern Catholic patriarchates are not titular, are not buildings , but rather offices, and probably the largest problem: are not set as to which ones are cardinals.
The suburbicarian sees issue is similar, but not as bad in that they don’t change when someone dies. Having thought on it again, I’m more inclined to see them as outside of scope as well: the Roman tituli refer to buildings, not sees. That the cardinals who hold them are titular now doesn’t change a dioceses into a building. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I do tend to agree with you, but, the way I see it, suburbicarian dioceses are assigned in much the same way to cardinals as titles and deaconries are, as I mentioned above, regardless if one considers them to be buildings or jurisdictions or sees, which seems to place it within the scope, albeit on a less primary level than titular churches. Even if it potentially falls outside of the scope, it would be worthwhile to at least mention their existence in relation to the other tituli; a list probably wouldn't be out of place. The same would seem to go for the patriarchates, although removing the list of those could be beneficial. Personally, I don't think that considering cardinals along with churches to define the scope is necessarily unreasonable – what we're presenting is a list of jurisdictions that can be assigned to a cardinal of the Church that is symbolic of his office in that regard. That said, I would also consider the suburbicarian dioceses (and patriarchates) section to be more of auxiliary data than a core part of the list itself; perhaps more could be done to distinguish those from the titles and the deaconries. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you very clearly define your scope as the buildings in the prose of the lead, and the title of the list strongly suggests that as well. We have List of living cardinals, which you already brought to FL status that covers all the living cardinals, and could easily incorporate their titles (and probably should), so duplicating that here by making this about the people doesn't make much sense.
Additionally, there is a lot of interest in the historical churches of Rome, and having a list with a clearly defined scope covering the tituli of the cardinals as buildings (which is what this list suggests it is doing) brings value to the encyclopedia in a way a second list of living cardinals that also happens to mention the churches and jurisdictions they have in their title doesn't. I think this is a much larger issue for the Eastern Catholic patriarchs than it is for the suburbicarian sees. They are cardinals, but their titles are no longer one of the defined Roman sees or churches, but their own see. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I once suggested that titular churches could go in List of living cardinals, but there was consensus that such information belonged in this article instead, as it could excessively lengthen the table over in that article. Furthermore, while this list could well serve as a list of Roman churches, it is neither an exhaustive list of "historical" churches (many titulars are modern) or even of all churches in Rome – that could potentially be a separate article of its own, without a focus on cardinals. As I mentioned in my reply above, the data on suburbicarian dioceses can be considered auxiliary and merely supplemental. What I would propose is to: 1. move the section on suburbicarian dioceses to the bottom of the article to lessen its current supposed importance in the article and 2. remove the table in the patriarchates section, which, as you pointed out, is subject to change upon death, etc. This would still leave the prose to explain the dynamics of the situation, especially in relation to cardinal bishops. Would this be an acceptable compromise? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work, yes. There are still the verifiability issues with the date of establishments though. Your solution is to remove the dates, which I wouldn't have a problem with, but Nergaal and Jmnbqb might have thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: The dates of establishment have been removed from the article (incidentally, something for which VisualEditor is exceptionally useful) and the section on suburbicarian dioceses has been moved to the bottom, as suggested above. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support important topic that you have covered adequately and have resolved my concerns about verifiability and scope. Having looked over this again this morning, I'm prepared to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Thanks for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • " Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinal bishops are not assigned titles of suburbicarian dioceses." You should say whether Eastern Catholic priests can be second and third order cardinals and whether they are appointed to titular churches.
  • "On occasion, a titular church may be held in commendam ("in trust") to a cardinal who has been transferred to a different one." This is not referenced and not covered in the linked article in commendam.
  • " and the seven suburbicarian dioceses, as well as the three Eastern Catholic patriarch cardinals" I would delete as ungrammatical and repeating what is said above, apart from the numbers, which could be added to the text above.
  • " All locations in this article are situated in the Italian region of Lazio; those outside the city of Rome incorporate abbreviations in the second table." You say in the lead that they are all in Rome.
  • The sub-divisions are confusing. Do they refer to how close the church is to the centre of Rome? If so, you need to explain. What does "incorporate abbreviations in the second table" mean? in the fourth table on Suburbicarian dioceses?
  • Some abbreviations such as M. XV and XV are not explained.
  • This could be a good FL, but it is still some way off, especially on the locations. I would suggest deleting all references to subdivisions unless you can make them clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: The subdivisions were added in response to an FLC comment above, that I should provide localities/coords for the entries in the article. I thus decided to include, for locations within the city of Rome (the municipality), the general name for the neighbourhood and its type of subdivision ("R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z.") and also the municipio ("M.") in which it is located, which spans all of those. They have been briefly outlined in the Key to locations section, the links in which users can use to find out more about the administrative system of Rome. In this article, however, they are only used for the purpose of locations.
  • The localities and coords are helpful, but the abbreviations for sub-division type and technical details such as the difference between Rome and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital are irrelevant to this article and mean nothing to English speaking readers. They are merely confusing and should be deleted. If you wish to add additional information, a separate column for the municipio together with the map in Administrative subdivision of Rome would be useful to visitors to Rome. However, this is only a suggestion as it would be a lot of work and is mostly covered in 'Map all coordinates'. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: I think that some sort of differentiation is required to show that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are located outside of Rome; this could be done in the prose, while doing away with the "RM"/"RI" in the locations. Furthermore, the subdivision type can convey some information about its location within the city: "R." locations are in the city centre, followed by "Q." locations, etc. We could clarify this in the Key section above. An added benefit is that this identifies the locations as being situated in Rome. What do you think? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Showing that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are outside Rome in prose would be better, and a symbol for city centre churches would be helpful. I do not see the point of the other symbols as they do not tell you what direction out of the centre they are in. I have also had second thoughts about the district names. Very few have articles in English Wikipedia, so unless there is a map you can add, they will not help readers. If you cannot find a map of districts, you might consider replacing the districts with the municipios, and you can then use the map in the Administrative subdivision article, and this will indicate to the reader who is visiting say, Aurelia, which churches are in the area. Of course, they are large areas, so the districts (if they are smaller) with a map would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: I've now removed all references to municipi, as well as other distinguishing abbreviations in the Suburbicarian dioceses section, with clarification in the prose. The Key section now also includes a short description of the "R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z." abbreviations, now with a map to show things better. I kept the abbreviations for communicating some basic locational information and because they seem more complete with them. Also, I'm quite certain that we can presume that readers utilising this article to sight-see in Rome would have a sort of digital map to search up these locations in the table (which seem to be better found with the abbreviations). Do bear in mind that this article does not aim to list all churches in Rome; that's better a separate article of its own. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've included the phrase "Other Eastern Catholic cardinals are assigned titular churches, as standard." to clarify in this regard.
  2. Reference included.
  3. I've removed the phrase on patriarchates (something I forgot to remove earlier). The numbers seem to fit in with the statistics of that paragraph.
  4. In the second paragraph: "…suburbicarian diocese, in the vicinity of Rome". Some of the suburbicarians are located just outside the city boundaries but still within the same Italian region.
  5. As above, they are merely reflective of the local Roman administrative system that is used to locate churches. The suburbicarian dioceses table uses the abbreviations in the second table to indicate that they are outside of the city of Rome (see 4.). I suppose that I could explain the system used above, although such information would be merely supplementary in regards to the actual content of the article at hand.
  6. As above, these refer to a form of Roman administrative subdivision, explained and linked to in the Key to locations section, which are numbered using Roman numerals (I to XV).
Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stalled out again, so taking a look: we have two supports, one conditional support, and 2 closed comments. I'm not finding anything objectionable, and the source review passed, so I'm going to promote. --PresN 17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_titular_churches/archive1&oldid=847108026"