Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy

Purpose

This page is designed as a forum to discuss the strategy for editing articles relating to the Catholic Church.

Proposed MoS rule relating to Cardinals

I was made aware of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Cardinals to establish a rule about how to refer to Cardinals in the article text. While I've read the proposal, I've not yet made up my mind if I'd support it, oppose it, or propose some change to it. However, I thought I'd present the discussion to the members of the WikiProject, as they're the some of the most involved in these articles. Gentgeen (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion would be if possible to eliminate only those terms which are not supported by at least some historical differentiation from other terms. We do not want to present inaccurate information, and eliminating different terms for distinct procedures would do just that. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I be permitted to wonder aloud what inaccurate information could possibly be presented by referring to cardinals, as they have been since at latest 1708 as "Cardinal Jules Mazarin", rather than "Jules Cardinal Mazarin". These two styles or terms have surely never been differentiated from each other: they are not different terms for distinct procedures or realities. I agree with John Carter. Lima (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This subject was introduced on the Catholicism Project talk page immediately following a discussion about whether bishops, cardinals, and the like should be mentioned as "installed", "enthroned", etc. It would not be unreasonable to think that some parties coming to this page would be coming to deal with that particular subject. Regarding the matter of article naming, I think the "Cardinal John Doe" arrangement is probably the preferable, although if the person had only one name "Cardinal Fred" would probably have to do. There are some cased, like John Henry Cardinal Newman, where I think they are best known or at least most often referred to in sources which refer to them by that name, so in those cases a redirect might be called for, but even in those cases the proposed format should be followed. That article does raise the question as to whether the "Cardinal" would be included in all article names. I suppose if the subject is sufficiently notable in some other context, or simply most frequently referred to without the title at all, that not using the title would be preferable, although I don't know how often that will happen. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it. Using "Cardinal" as a part of their name was an affectation which the Romans used. Which is why they finally did away with it. Using Mazarin. Newman, and others in the traditional way, will only cause problems with editors and readers. I suggest using Cardinal John Doe once and calling him "Doe" from then on where possible. I think we do this anyway, but having to argue out the bios of the cardinals prior to the change is just a nuisance we don't need. Let's standardize it in the modern way. Where quotes prevent this, explain the old usage in a comment. Student7 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]