Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cardinals

Note: The following discussion led to a decision on the form to be used in the titles of articles. The question of the form to be used in the body of articles has been raised specifically at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Cardinals. Lima (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that most of the articles on Wikipedia that refer to Cardinals refer to them rather irritatingly as Firstname Cardinal Lastname; e.g. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm about to go change them all to Cardinal Firstname Lastname as per standard English usage, but wanted to check if there's any particular reason for this oddity before I do. All English-language news sources I know of, and even official Vatican press releases put the Cardinal as a titular preface, so I see no reason to deviate from standard English practice for titles if even the Vatican does not (see, for example, [1], which refers to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, not Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor). --Delirium 19:53, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

That is the agreed wikipedia covention, based on consultation with the Vatican. The Cardinal firstname surname only dates from the 1960s, so would be wrong in the case of 99% of cardinals who predate the 1960s. Two alternative versions is unworkable as many post the 1960s continue to use the traditional form and would produce edit wars. I checked in detail with the Vatican on the issue. The Vatican's modern news coverage of modern cardinals, in the words of a monsignor, "grudgingly goes along with media usage when we name" but prefers the technically correct form, which is also the only own workable for 99% of cardinals. In addition it keeps Cardinal surname together in searches on google and elsewhere, allowing more efficient links. It also covers the problem of what to use where, as happens, a cardinal uses a different cardinalate name to his own. As this is an encyclopædia, not a newspaper, and as we cover historic figures and not just contemporary ones, sticking to contemporary usage is in practice unworkable unless you want to make up names that never existed, covering 1000 years of cardinals to suit post 1960s naming systems, eg. there is no one called Cardinal Paul Cullen but there is Paul Cardinal Cullen, no one called Cardinal Thomas Wolsey but someone called Thomas Cardinal Wolsey. Leaving out cardinal altogether is also unworkable as many mediæval cardinals' first names are long since forgotten, they simply being remembered as Cardinal x. As this is a convention overwhelmingly agreed on wikipedia and applied to 1000 years of cardinals on wikipedia, any attempt to unilaterally change the system that has been agreed, is technically correct and is the Vatican's own perferred version in encyclopædias, will simply be reverted. FearÉIREANN 20:25, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"All English-language news sources I know of, and even official Vatican press releases put the Cardinal as a titular preface" - funny, I heard "Bernard Cardinal Law" a whole lot in the (US) news a couple months back (which was confusing until I got used to it)... -- Jake 22:52, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Law is a classic example of the complexity. There are many others. For example, the Irish cardinal in the 1960s and 1970s called himself William Cardinal Conway, never ever Cardinal William Conway. His successor called himself Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich and occasionally Tómas Cardinal Ó Fiaich. His successor again used both versions, Cardinal Cathal Daly and on some ecclesiastical occasions Cathal Cardinal Daly. The current cardinal is known in the media as Cardinal Desmond Connell and in some ecclesiastical and church publications as Desmond Cardinal Connell. Neither of the two previous cardinal archibishops of Dublin (both nineteenth century) were ever called in their lifetime anything but firstname Cardinal surname, except in a small minority of lightweight school history books in the 1970s, which controversially referred to Cardinal Paul Cullen. After being criticised for "making up a name", later editions simply spoke about Cardinal Cullen.

So if you followed Delirium's logic, you should rename the majority of Dublin cardinals to conform to the more widely used post Vatican II populist version, even though they never ever were called that, or have a list of three people which used two different naming formulæ. And you should rename all past Cardinal Archbishops of Armagh to follow the naming conventions of the last two. Elementary logic suggests that, given that wikipedia not merely covers the post 1960s era but all of history, that you stick to the one formula for the lists, a formula which the Vatican itself says is the most correct but which reluctantly it has decided not to use when writing only about modern cardinals for the modern mass media. Encyclopædias don't operate like the New York Times or the Times (of London) because, as they cover topics and a timeline far outside modern news management, they have to operate by different criteria. But then this was discussed before, and agreed before. In fact if I remember correctly everyone agreed that firstname Cardinal surname was the only workable solution on wikipedia. Which is why everyone who has added in cardinal names for month and months has followed that formula. Delirium seems to want to change all references to all cardinals dating back 1000 years on wikipedia to confirm to one version sometimes used in the last few decades by some cardinals but by no means all. FearÉIREANN 23:22, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a problem with calling previous cardinals by Cardinal firstname surname. This is standard English handling of titles: Title firstname surname. If it is factually correct that firstname surname was a title, then that usage is correct, regardless of the title or any particular idiosyncratic rules an organization may have about its honorifics. The usage Wikipedia currently employs is confusing and hard to read, implying to most English readers that Cardinal is the person's middle name. I frankly find the articles using this infuriating to read, so if it remains will have to go elsewhere for information on Catholic topics (several uninvolved people have commenting on the same to me, which is how it first came to my attention). Furthermore, if you open up history books, the Cardinal firstname lastname usage is already prevalent for cardinals from previous centuries, regardless of what they called themselves in official documents: it is simply standard English descriptive terminology.

To summarize: firstname Cardinal surname is a highly non-standard idiosyncratic type of honorific, whereas Cardinal firstname lastname is standard English. Furthermore, the latter is used in most contemporary history books (including those about Cardinals from hundreds of years ago), whereas the former is almost exclusively confined to document produced decades ago, and is no longer in common modern English usage, by the Vatican or elsewhere. --Delirium 23:27, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Standard English? firstname Lord surname was very common for a fair period of time as well. These days, it mostly gets shifted, or a comma inserted to be firstname, Lord surname. -- Jake 23:38, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: was common for a fair period of time. It is no longer standard English usage. Wikipedia should, I presume, be written in modern English. Just because we're writing about someone from the 16th century doesn't mean we have to do so using 16th century English. --Delirium 23:44, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but I snicker every time I see the phrase "standard English". There hasn't been such a thing since 1066 or thereabouts. You have a valid point... but I could, if I dug, find other examples where the usage persists- for an easy example, Arab and Central Asian titles go that way strongly, even in their English versions. Maybe that's not English enough for you. I'll take a look around... -- Jake 00:02, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So obviously we all dreamt about all those references to Bernard Cardinal Law a few month back. The Vatican doesn't know titles and everyone else on wiki who has used the name Cardinal surname format successfully for months on wikipedia is living in a timewarp that only you avoided.

So should the former king of Afghanistan have shah in front of his name, because "standard english" would place his title there, even though his title as used in english places it elsewhere? Should all foreign names that locate surnames at a different place in a name and do so in english be rewritten to conform to your definition of so-called "standard english"? So-called standard english for millions is American English. For millions of others, American English is idiosyncratic and they use British English. Which standard english should wikipedia use? Should it use the grammatical structure and spellings of American English, British English, Hiberno-English, Indian-English, or which else? The argument that an institution's choice of title structure cannot be used simply because your definition of standard english, based on late twentieth century norms unused before then and not universally used even now, is rather threadbare and indeed comical. FearÉIREANN 23:55, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What do each of you (and the Vatican!) think of firstname, Cardinal surname? -- Jake 23:56, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There were indeed some references to Bernard Cardinal Law a few months back; however, these were vastly outnumbered by references to Cardinal Bernard Law (a simple search on either google or the archives of any major news source can point this out). Note that I have no problem with Cardinal Law; that's perfectly fine usage when you elide the first name, so irrelevant to this discussion (Prime Minister Thatcher works similarly). The usage I'm proposing is, if not universal, at least the vastly preferred current usage, both within the Vatican and elsewhere. I have provided references that this is the standard usage at both the BBC and the Vatican's own press office; I'm not sure how much more evidence I can give towards that end.

I would prefer firstname, Cardinal surname the current usage, though I still find it somewhat silly and unnecessary: the information we're trying to convey is "Cardinal so-and-so", and we seem to be hung up on doing it in some overly formalized manner, instead of simply using conversational English. But adding the comma does make it less confusing. --Delirium 00:03, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

In clerical naming, the first name was originally used as the key. Documents receiving an episcopal imprimatur are still signed + (ie, christian cross) <first name>. In practice however the comma died out of usage except in formal ecclesiastical documents many centuries ago. Instead names are written as a block, with the title placed directly before the surname. In the peerage, wikipedia, based on extensive research and consultation, opted to use surnames for disambigulation purposes, simply because John, Duke of Kensington could cause problems if the mythical title had been held by different families, so Wikipedia's agreed naming policy would produce John Spencer, 4th Duke of Kensington, John Hoynes, 9th Duke of Kensington. That is the reason for the comma usage in wikipedia peerage title references. But it is unnecessary in cardinal names as most cardinals over the last millennium used the format name Cardinal surname. Cardinal name surname and name, Cardinal surname are both small subsets of naming structure used at either end of the period in which cardinal names have been used. FearÉIREANN 00:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the period these names have been used is important. They're essentially three ways of indicating the same information. The Cardinal name surname is the currently most common one. Clearly as this was not in use a hundred years ago, Cardinals then did not use it, but this doesn't make it wrong in any sense to retroactively apply it, as it's simply a matter of grammar. As far as Cardinals with only a single name, that's perfectly fine and in keeping with the "use the most commonly used name in English" heuristic, so Cardinal Richelieu I'm fully supportive of. --Delirium 00:33, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

An added comment: I'm not so much worried about the article titles, for which some reasonable disambiguation scheme seems defensible. I'm more objecting to the use of e.g. Cardinal Bernard Law in running text in an article, as it's not very conversational and hard to decipher by those not familiar with this whole thing. --Delirium 01:48, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

There is no sense in this firstname, Cardinal, lastname format, which has no real support in the practice of the Vatican, except in some deliberately archaic formulations in Latin. It is largely in modern times a deliberate recreation by prissy conservative groups in the USA. Nor is this cardinal in the middle convention usual in other major languages. It is folly to use this format in titles of pages, ruins a lot of searches. The idea that the format Cardinal + firstname + lastname started in the 1960's is simply wrong. What mainstream history book talks about "Thomas Cardinal Wolsey"? The thing is clearcut in itself and modern usage does not go for stuff like "Bill President Clinton". There is no need cluttering up the system with redirect pages from the form with cardinal in the middle. In addition, in a page covering the life of someone who became a cardinal is made ridiculous by the fact that the name does not simply, as in modern English, add a title at the beginning at the appropriate point but anticipate or postdate the use of the title. The name of the present pope is no longer "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger" but "Joseph Ratzinger" with the regnal name "Benedict XVI". Insistance on an eccentric quirk is messing up many articles and is infuriating. As are the wrong-headed individuals who keep obstructing any sort of more reasonable formulation on the relevant rules page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.18 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 January 2006

Why call someone "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger" as a cardinal but not "Joseph Pope Ratzinger with regnal name Benedict XVI" as Pope? This is about as silly as deciding that a "dwarf planet" is not a "planet". Whatever. He's not exactly your average Joe. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Little Google search on John Newman (in English, exclucing Wikipedia):

• "John Cardinal Newman" 684 hits
• "Cardinal John Newman" 751 hits
• "Cardinal John Henry Newman" 24.200 hits
• "John Henry Cardinal Newman" 83.100 hits

Well, I dunno, I suppose I'd want to see something more convincing than that before trying to find an alternate consensus over cardinal naming. --Francis Schonken 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For that sake,

• "Cardinal Camillo Ruini": 35.000
• "Camillo Cardinal Ruini": 586.

This naming convention is inappropriate, not even the Catholic church uses it, maybe in some old-fashioned documents but certainly not in everyday practice. I was grown in a catholic country (hell, I was grown in Italy itself!) and this is the absolute first time I hear of this naming practice. It is going to cause a lot of disruption: if someone searches for "name surname" the string will not match, since Wikipedia maintains a title in an awkward place.

I say, keep the main article in "Name Surname" and leave a redirect at most. --Orzetto 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the policy. I am quite surprised how long it lasted, given no one provided sources for the claim that Name Cardinal Surname was the official Vatican naming convention. It turns out that, Googling the Vatican's official site, the title of cardinal is almost always used before the full name (or the last name when the first is left out). Some results, limited to the Vatican's website:

• Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: 138
• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: 33
• Cardinal Angelo Sodano: 270
• Angelo Cardinal Sodano: 9
• Cardinal Karol Wojtiła: 1
• Karol Cardinal Wojtiła: none
• Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi: 33
• Dionigi Cardinal Tettamanzi: none

This is only the official site of the Vatican. I do not think Wikipedia should endorse an outdated naming convention that is no longer in use even in the Vatican itself. --Orzetto 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not entitled to unilaterally change an agreed policy. It is a crazy and unworkable proposal. The Vatican only has to write about current cardinals. Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, has to cover 1000 years of cardinals. Hundreds of them have no remembered first name. Many used different cardinalate names to their birth names and are completely unknown by their birth name. Unless we decide that we can leave out hundreds of mediaeval cardinals we have no choice but to use cardinal and their surname. In addition many are only known as Cardinal so and so and only historians know that the Cardinal's first name was John or whatever. How many people, for example, knows that Tettamanzi's first name is Dionigi? This policy was adopted because it was the simplest workable one available. It meant that the most likely format used in google searches, namely Cardinal surname, as in Cardinal Wolsey, Cardinal Heenan, Cardinal Richelieu, Cardinal Ó Fiaich etc will find the article. The format that places Cardinal ahead of the first name is not the policy of the RC Church — that was confirmed by the Vatican when the issue was being explored and the policy worked out. Putting Cardinal ahead of first name is an informal policy that only dates from 1965. Using that form on WP would involve renaming hundreds of cardinal names to a form that they never used, were never known by, and are never known by, to conform to what the Vatican says in an "unofficial and incorrect" form adopted in the 1960s. But for practical reasons, leaving out Cardinal is not an option because 90%+ of those who search for a cardinal's name will use that title. Cardinal names are also akin to monarchical names in so far as they are with the rare exception of someone becoming pope, the final definitive name: they will have it until death unless they quit the church (which no modern cardinal ever does) because except for the papacy that few will ever get elected to there is no higher church office they can receive that would involve a further name change. Even when they retire they still are a cardinal. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN, your argument is moot. This is an unmotivated policy. Let's debunk your points:

• You are not entitled to unilaterally change an agreed policy.

So was not he who imposed it in the first place. I have seen irritated comments in various talk pages (of single cardinals and list of cardinals) about this naming style. I simply reverted to common sense.

• It is a crazy and unworkable proposal

It's very simple, easy and common-sensical, and that's how every personal entry is: name and surname. You don't have the name, you write "Cardinal X". You simply use the most common name used to indicate that person

• The Vatican only has to write about current cardinals. Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, has to cover 1000 years of cardinals.

No, you never saw the Vatican writing on their past cardinals. No, they do not have any registers and publications about their previous cardinals. Sure.

• Many used different cardinalate names to their birth names[...]

That's what redirects are for. By the way, for these it might be useful to use a "Cardinal X" notation, surely not for the modern ones.

• Unless we decide that we can leave out hundreds of mediaeval cardinals we have no choice but to use cardinal and their surname.

This is a non-point. You are assuming that consistency has to be mandatory. You can use normal notation for modern cardinals, and "Cardinal X" notation for those with an unknown name. How many are these anyway?

• [...]the most likely format used in google searches, namely Cardinal surname[...]

That's what redirects are for. Cardinal Ruini -> Camillo Ruini.

• The format that places Cardinal ahead of the first name is not the policy of the RC Church

In fact it is. See the stats above and any press release from the church. You may only contend it is not officially stated, but neither is any other, and this is simply the one in current usage.

• [...]the Vatican says [that this is] an "unofficial and incorrect" form[...]

Sources? First thing I did was looking for sources, but the Vatican itself uses mostly this "unofficial and incorrect" form. If there were such a source, things would be different—but there isn't. In fact, in a humorous twist, I tried to search google for the phrase "unofficial and incorrect" that you quoted, and the word "cardinal". The only one who says this, according to Google, is yourself.

• Cardinal names are also akin to monarchical names

And we have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, Harald V of Norway—no one of these is called "King" or "Queen".

This awkward and archaic usage is also susceptible of POV, since it might be considered (and probably is) Lefebvrian, therefore politically aligned. In any news source, Cardinals are either named as "Cardinal Sixpack" or "Cardinal Joe Sixpack". I never, ever heard "Joe Cardinal Sixpack". I stress that I grew up in Italy and that the church appears every half an hour on national television, it's not like Cardinals are in the shadows.

If some particular cardinal is actively using the "Joe Cardinal Sixpack" style, and that is used to indicate him among the public, that is admissible. But, being this style very rare, I find it completely undefendable. --Orzetto 10:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Orzetto for this update. Have made the corresponding section of wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) a link to the "western clergy" section about cardinals (in order to avoid contradicting guidelines). [2] --Francis Schonken 11:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I also support this change. Orzetto's points above have not been adequately addressed.--Transf1o 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They have been addressed repeatedly over and over again for a over a year. Try reading them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN: I tried reading them, but the only discussion I could find was this section. Your first post here reads "That is the agreed wikipedia covention, based on consultation with the Vatican." So where is the ealier discussion that reached this consensus? The only poster here who has supported the current convention is you. Even if it was agreed 3+ years ago, no convention is set in stone. jnestorius^(talk) 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this old discussion. A notable U.S. book on the topic is James-Charles Noonan's The Church Visible (Viking, 1996), which has a note on p.205:

It is improper to refer to a cardinal in any other form than John Cardinal Doe. The recent practice of Cardinal John Doe is improper and has no foundation in law. The exact Latin formula would be, using John Cardinal Krol, Archbishop-Emeritis of Philadelphia as an example, Johannes S.R.E. Cardinalis Krol."

While Noonan is not the final authority on what is "proper", it is some support for the current WP convention. The "Cardinal John Doe" form seems to be the norm in French and Italian, however. Gimmetrow 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposing change of policy

I am certain that Fear Éireann could never substantiate his claim that the (present) Wikipedia convention was based on "consultation with the Vatican." How strange that the form used in the English text of papal documents and, in general, all documents on the Vatican website and in the English edition of L'Oservatore Romano puts the title "Cardinal" before the whole name of the person, instead of inserting it in the middle, as this "consultation with the Vatican" is supposed to have recommended!

What has been on the Namings Conventions page is just a set of gratuitous completely undocumented auto-authoritative statements. I have not removed it, but I have placed with it an alternative version with verifiable sources that show how unfounded the present text is, and how contrary the "agreed wikipedia covention" is to the rules applied by what seem to be the chief authorities on the matter (Vatican usage and the Catholic News Service stylebook).

I propose that the new alternative text replace the former. Lima 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to propose new text, fine, start a section on the talk page and it can be discussed and consenses agreed to. Adding it directly to an agreed and in-effect guideline page is irresponsible. I have therefore removed it.

Additionally, I disagree with one of your assertions, namely that all documents on the Vatican website put "Cardinal" before the whole name of the person. In this letter from Cardinal Re (2002), this circular letter from Cardinal Daoud (2006), this letter from Cardinal Ratzinger (2004), this address of Cardinal Stafford (2006), this introduction by Cardinal Poupard (2005), and this document from Cardinal Arinze (2004), among other examples that would be tedious to list, the name is given in the traditional {forname} Cardinal {surname} format. These are all official documents of the dicasteries these cardinals chair, either as prefect, president, etc., and are therefor the most formal documents the cardinals in question can expect to sign, unless they are someday elevated to the Chair of Peter; you will note that all are rather recent. I do admit that other cardinals in other dicasteries choose to use the Cardinal {forname} {surname} format, and a few that I cite alternate between the two.

Clearly, the "cardinal in the middle" system is still in active use by the Vatican; neither style is applied at the expense of the other, both are accecptable to the Vatican. So, we're in a situation where, atleast for "modern" cardinals, there are at least two possible titles for their article to reside.

For older cardinals, the new system was never used during their lifetimes, so should not be applied ex post facto.

This leaves us with two possible solutions. Have one naming convention for "old" cardinals, and another for "new" cardinals, or have one naming convention that covers both. Based on the "keep it simple, stupid" principle, I choose one convention for all cardinals. Gentgeen

I accept without difficulty Gentgeen's doubtless justified demand that the proposed new text be placed here, not on the Naming Conventions page. Here it is, continuing the above discussion:

Cardinals go, in the titles of articles, by their name alone, without the word "Cardinal", unless they are distinguishable only by its inclusion, as in the case of a hypothetical Cardinal John Smith. Use, therefore, the form "Reginald Pole", "Cesare Borgia"; not the form "Cardinal Reginald Pole", nor the form "Cesare Cardinal Borgia".

If the title "Cardinal" is used in reference to someone, it is prefixed to the complete name, both first name(s) and surname(s), for example: "Cardinal Angelo Sodano", not "Angelo Cardinal Sodano". This format avoids problems arising from mistakes in distinguishing the surname(s) of cardinals with more than one surname, as in Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking countries, and of those from East Asia, where the surname is usually placed before the personal name(s).

James-Charles Noonan, referring to some unspecified and probably non-existent law, writes that "it is improper to refer to a cardinal in any other form than John Cardinal Doe. The recent practice of Cardinal John Doe is improper and has no foundation in law" (The Church Visible, p.205). In reality, the form that places the title before the first name, as "Cardinal John Doe", is almost universal in the usage of the Holy See's website, quite universal on the part of Catholic News Service (evidently in conformity with its widely-quoted stylebook), and is the usual form for other news agencies and newspapers, both Catholic and secular. The order "Cardinal John Doe" is by no means recent. The early-twentieth-century Catholic Encyclopedia, which followed this usage, commented that the form given in The Catholic Directory published in London in 1906 ("His Eminence Cardinal ..." - not "His Eminence ... Cardinal ...") "may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general." An 1848 English translation of the documents of the Council of Trent speaks of "Cardinal Gaspar Contarini"[3]. It also speaks of "John, Cardinal Morone, and Louis, Cardinal Simonetta"[4], a sign perhaps that the form "John Cardinal Morone" (without comma sign) was not yet accepted.

The "John Cardinal Smith" manner of referring to cardinals may have arisen because of confusion with the traditional order used in their signatures. In accordance with Latin tradition, cardinals, like the Pope, sign by placing the title (Papa, abbreviated Pp., or Cardinalis abbreviated Card.) after their first name, as, for instance, "Benedictus Pp. XVI" or "John Card. Smith". But the normal way of referring to these is as "Pope Benedict XVI" and "Cardinal John Smith".

In the definitive version of the proposed statement of the rule, the reference to Noonan could be omitted, provided, of course, nobody wants to cite this United States writer against the rule.

I notice that Gentgeen has made no attempt to provide evidence for the affirmations in the present text that I have questioned, such as:

• "This is the format officially used by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to its cardinals."
• "Since Vatican II, an alternative version, placing the word 'Cardinal' before the first name has grown in popularity.
• "the great majority of cardinals predate this change"
• the rule itself.

Gentgeen seems not to have read what I wrote. He maintains: "For older cardinals, the new system was never used during their lifetimes." The few quotations I gave prove that, even in English, the more natural order, "Cardinal Name Surname" was in use at least as far back as 1848. I presume it was in use as far back as surnames were in use.

He falsely attributes to me the affirmation "all documents on the Vatican website put 'Cardinal' before the whole name of the person". All I said was that this is the overwhelming usage on the website. A random examination is enough to support what I said, and say.

Gentgeen has failed to provide even one instance of "Name Cardinal Surname" being used on the Vatican website to refer to a cardinal. (There are in reality some cases, just a few.) All he has done is to present documents in which the signature is in that order. In my proposed new text, it is stated explicitly that it is traditional for cardinals to sign that way. But it is traditional to refer to them, to speak of them in the third person, as "Cardinal Name Surname". Another indication, it seems, that Gentgeen just cancelled my version unread.

I hope others will give greater thought to the matter. Lima 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a text praising the CNS, it would be better to get their stylebook and quote it. Until then, here are some other texts:

• Ecclesiastical Address in the old CE, not 100% clear but seems to support the Cardinal John Smith form
• Mirriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary & Thesaurus (1997 HTML edition) supports John Cardinal Smith
• AmericanCatholic.org supports John Cardinal Smith and references some other book
• NGSGeneology.org (.doc) supports John Cardinal Smith saying "Cardinal" is an infix: (html version)

Both forms are used in the old CE, though the old CE article on the topic itself doesn't mention any divergence in practice. It seems both forms are "traditional" but quite a few sites in the U.S. seem to think the infix form is standard. Noonan is also American. Is this a U.S. thing? Gimmetrow 07:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow can be depended on to come up with some good references. His first reference is in reality quite clear: it quotes "The Catholic Directory" (London, 1906) - yet another source dating from long before the Second Vatican Council - as saying the correct form is "His Eminence Cardinal ..." (not "His Eminence ... Cardinal ..."). I wonder what is the significance of "oldwikis" in the address of the second site Gimmetrow gives: does it perhaps indicate that the view it gives is based on Wikipedia entries? If that is the case, and perhaps it is not, it cannot be adduced in favour of the until-now Wikipedia rule. Site 3 does not really consider which form is correct: it only seeks an explanation of the "Name Cardinal Surname" practice. Much the same can be said of site 4: it does not say "John Cardinal Smith" is the correct form for referring to cardinals; it only says that, in the expression "John Cardinal Smith", "Cardinal" is what is called an "infix". So, of the four sites Gimmetrow has helpfully given, only the first two indicate what they consider to be the correct form. The 1906 Catholic Directory, which the Catholic Encyclpedia said "may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general" is in favour of "Cardinal John Smith", and the www.cs.harvard.edu/oldwikis/ site is in favour of "John Cardinal Smith". Which is the more authoritative on what is basicly an internal matter of the Catholic Church? And why ignore the Catholic News Service stylebook, about whose ruling, in view of Catholic News Service's own practice, there is absolutely no doubt?

It would be helpful if Gimmetrow would give some instance of "John Cardinal Smith" by the Catholic Encyclopedia. His statements are always (or almost always) right, so I presume there are instances. But I came across, by mere chance, the three instances I have given of "Cardinal John Smith", and do not remember ever coming across the form "John Cardinal Smith" in the text of the Encyclopedia, although it is the form chosen by whoever drew up the index of its modern electronic transcription.

No, it is not "a U.S. thing". The preceding talk here shows that the notion that "John Cardinal Smith" is the correct form is rife also in Ireland. As you know, I think this notion arose simply because of the way cardinals sign documents.

There is no question that both forms are now in use, and that at least one ("Cardinal John Smith") was already in use more than a century and a half ago. The question is which can claim to be more correct, on the basis of having greater authority behind it. Lima 09:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely some United States Wikipedian can either purchase or check in a public library the Catholic News Service Stylebook on Religion and let the rest of us know what exactly it says. Lima 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In the old CE, there is for instance the article on Francis Patrick Cardinal Moran (assuming the title is original - most bio articles do not use "cardinal" in the title). There are other wikis than wikipedia, so don't dismiss the 1997 MW link just because it has "wiki" in the URL. My comment on the CNS is not ignoring it, but more about how any policy text should be phrased. Gimmetrow 12:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to save the following comment, when I found Gimmetrow has beaten me to it. However, I will paste my text in here, just as I had typed it.

I have found just one instance of "John Cardinal Smith" in the Catholic Encyclopedia: in the title of the article Francis Patrick Cardinal Moran. I suppose I can presume that the title in the Encyclopedia itself corresponds to this title of the electronic transcription. I notice, however, that in the body of the article there is a mention of "Cardinal Joachim Pecci". I looked in vain for a second instance, and gave up after looking at the first 300 that the Google search on NewAdvent.org threw up for the word "cardinal". Instead, I came across the following of the "Cardinal John Smith" variety (there may be duplications because of mentions in more than one article of the same person): Cardinal Stefano Porcaro, Cardinal Reginald Pole, Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli, Cardinal Arnaud de Villemur, Cardinal Oliviero Caraffa, Cardinal Domenico Spinucci, Cardinal Camillo Siciliano di Rende, Cardinal Giovanni Proccamazza, Cardinal Egidio Colonna, Cardinal Uberto Lanfranchi, Cardinal Georges d'Amboise, Cardinal Federigo Borromeo, Cardinal Ascanio Maria Sforza, Cardinal Caesar Borgia, Cardinal Franz Wilhelm von Wartenberg, cardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, Cardinal Pietro Pierleone, Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Cardinal Marco Sittico d'Altemps, Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, Cardinal Gaetano Orsini, Cardinal Philippe de Cabassoles, Cardinal Dominic Capranica, Cardinal Luis María de Borbón, Cardinal Alfonso Caraffa, Cardinal Nicolas de Gaddi, Cardinal Guala Bicchieri, Cardinal Juan Carvajal, Cardinal Jean de La Balue, Cardinal Bernhard Maciejowski, Cardinal Rafael Riario, Cardinal Gil de Albornoz, Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, Cardinal Gerolamo della Rovere, Cardinal Luigi Fransoni, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. There is clearly no doubt about which form the Catholic Encyclopedia of almost a century ago considered to be the correct one. Wikipedia should immediately drop the nonsense about that form having come into common use only since the Second Vatican Council. Lima 12:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the article on Rome. It contains: "Raphael, Cardinal Consalvi", "Reginald Cardinal Pole", "Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere", "Cardinal Angelo Rocca", "William Cardinal O'Connell", "Cardinal Scipione Borghese", "Cardinal Alessandro Farnese", "Edward Cardinal Howard", "Henry Edward Cardinal Manning", "Herbert Cardinal Vaughan", "Thomas Cardinal Weld", "Cardinal Louis d'Albert", "Cardinal Matthew of Acquasparta", "Cardinal Giralamo Basso", "Cardinal Domenico Cabranica", "Paul Cardinal Cullen", "Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa", "Cardinal Angelo Mai", "Cardinal Gregorio Barbarigo", "Michael Cardinal Logue", "Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman" . Both forms in the same article, and a third (with the comma) that pops up rarely. The pattern generally appears to be infix for British/Irish cardinals, prefix for French/Italian cardinals. Gimmetrow 14:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I knew Gimmetrow would come up with something. While his example of the "with a comma" form is a mistake (the painter Raphael and Cardinal Consalvi are two different people in two different tombs), that form with a comma did exist. Perhaps I'll put it in above. Once more, it is not that "John Cardinal Smith" is exactly wrong: usage can make almost anything right. It is a matter of which form is more authoritative and so the one to be adopted by Wikipedia. The Catholic Encyclopedia, like the Vatican website, does include some "John Cardinal Smith" cases, but the other form is the form preferred in practice and also, in the case of the Catholic Encyclopedia, in theory. So what about getting rid of the attribution of the "Cardinal John Smith" form to the influence of the Second Vatican Council? Lima 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am not proposing the above phrasing as definitive for the new policy statement. It was written in somewhat polemic form, precisely because it was intended to stand beside the previous policy statement containing unfounded false claims. For instance, if the truth is accepted that the "Cardinal John Smith" form is far from recent, there will probably be no need to mention the Catholic Encyclopedia. So the above text is only a draft to be worked on. If there were agreement on the principle that it expresses, it could be put in the Naming Conventions page and then be licked into proper shape. Lima 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed that in the titles of articles a few names of cardinals have escaped the infixing zeal of certain Wikipedians: Ascanio Sforza and Achille Liénart are examples. Is it fair to add Cesare Borgia? He did not die a cardinal, but he was a cardinal. None who died a cardinal was born a cardinal! Which kind of search string would an ordinary person expect to be more useful for finding these and others: "Ascanio Sforza" or "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza"? Lima 07:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of honesty and sincerity, I must say I have just come across the infix form in German: "Jean-Pierre Kardinal Ricard" in a kreuz.net article (article.3915.html). I do not know how widespread the usage is in German, and I do not intend to study the question, since it is English usage that interests us. Nobody is now challenging the thesis that the form "Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard", rather than "Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard", has the more authoritative support (past: Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Directory; and present: Vatican website, Catholic News Service, predominant use in the media - is this rule perhaps given in the AP Stylebook?). Nor is anybody challenging the view that "Jean-Pierre Ricard", being the most useful search string, should therefore normally be used in the titles of articles on cardinals, a policy that would be in harmony with that on the titles of articles on saints. Lima 08:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has established "Cardinal John Smith" as the "more authoritative" form. There are two issues: the name of the article, and how the title is used within articles. For the name of the article on Cardinal Smith, it seems OK to me to have the article at John Smith perhaps with redirects from "Cardinal John Smith" and "John Cardinal Smith". (Depending on how the search function works, redirects for "Cardinal John Smith" may be unnecessary.) People known primarily with "cardinal", eg. Cardinal Richelieu, should have it in the article title. Gimmetrow 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Within an article, this seems like one of those preference situations, like British or American spelling, that are left a choice. I think in many cases the ideal form is to leave off the first name, and just say [[John Smith|Cardinal Smith]]. If the first name is important and the article is at "John Smith", it will be natural to just write Cardinal [[John Smith]], but I think the option to write [[John Smith|John Cardinal Smith]] should be fine too. Gimmetrow 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Gimmetrow. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Gentgeen has remained silent. I sent a notification to all the others who previously joined the discussion, whether they were pro-infixing or anti-infixing, to inform them that the matter has come up again. But they have not responded.

Since I think we two, the only ones discussing the matter, really agree on essentials, I am now changing the Naming convention in line with my interpretation of our common ideas.

That may finally bring in comments, for or against, from others, and so lead to improvements. Lima 18:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not taking part in this re-started discussion earlier. Was still in doubt what the best way of formulating this as a guideline text would be. Till I read Lima's last update ([5]) - yes, this makes perfect sense to me, couldn't have put it better myself.

Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Clerical names, point 3 should now be brought in line with this. Maybe there the opposition might be stronger (don't know currently how the feeling of those that watch that page would be)... but having two different guidelines regarding cardinals doesn't make much sense of course. --Francis Schonken 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of two people cannot set policy under NC or MoS, as you well know. The previous policy was set in a debate that involved over 40 users on IRC, the mailing lists and a number of pages. As this so-called policy was not debated in any meaningful way and involved hardly anyone I am reverting it to the form agreed following a long debate and reverting all changes made to impose this supposed policy produced by a debate of two. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All those whose names are mentioned above, including Fear Éireann (who admittedly was off-Wikipedia at the time), were informed of the recent discussion. A notice was also put on Talk:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Clerical names, so as to enable readers of that page to join in. None of them questioned the thorough debunking of the claims that "The Cardinal firstname surname only dates from the 1960s" and that the other form "is the Vatican's own perferred version."

If the former policy was based on such false claims, it should have been changed long since. In any case, it was not an infallibly defined dogma.

Not two but three have expressed themselves fully in favour of using Name+Surname only, which is the new policy, a policy that makes the disputed question of whether "Joe Cardinal Sixpack" or "Cardinal Joe Sixpack" is correct irrelevant. In view of the dispute about this question, trying to impose either of them would conflict with Wikipedia's basic NPOV policy.

The new text is also in line with the policy indicated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people):

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

and

Similarly, "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", or any other type of qualifier is generally avoided as first word for a page name of a page on a single person, unless for disambiguation or redirect purposes

Fear Éireann should make sure he now has support for his view, rather than making a unilateral change. Lima 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Late appendix

I'm new to this debate; I was going to propose changing the John Henry Newman article, until I went to cite the policy here as justification and found to my shock that the policy supported the original title. In skimming the above discussion I find it odd that it is never pointed out why "Cardinal" is treated differently from other honorifics: "Cardinal" is NOT a title, like "Doctor" or "Pope"; rather, when a person becomes a Cardinal, the word "Cardinal" actually becomes the penultimate part of that person's proper name. Thus, the article John Henry Newman should be named "John Henry Cardinal Newman", not because he was a Cardinal, but because "Cardinal" was in fact part of his legal name at his time of death. Because "Cardinal" is placed immediately before the last name, it is correct and common to refer to such a person as, for instance, "Cardinal Newman"; but it would NOT be correct to refer to him as "Cardinal John Henry Newman", because unlike becoming a Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, "Cardinal" is an office rather than a level of ordination, and there is no corresponding title.

I admit that it is more common than not in English to ignore this matter, and to treat "Cardinal" as a title. In the case of most words I would agree that the most common usage is ipso facto the correct one; but the matter is different when the term in question is technical. In writing about a religious figure in the context of an encyclopedia, NPOV dictates that we use the relevant terminology of that religion in the manner deemed proper by the religion in question - even if doing so differs from common speach. The matter is analogous to what has happened to the phrase "begs the question": although it is commonly used to mean simply that one's conclusion introduces a new difficulty, "begging the question" is a technical term for reasoning that has to assume the truth of its own conclusion in order for the premises upon which the conclusion is justified to be defensible. The mere fact that the term is frequently misused doesn't change the fact that it would be utterly unacceptable to use it other than in its technical sense in any article pertaining to matters of logic.

Finally, although it is rare in an encyclopedia to refer to a person other than in the third person, there will still undoubtedly be occasions in which it is necessary for the author to know that the proper was to address a Cardinal (and pretty much all other clergy for that matter) in person and in correspondence differs greatly from the proper form for referring to them in third party. In the case of Newman, he would be addressed in person as "Your Eminence" without mention of his personal name, whereas a letter to him would be addressed to "His Eminence, John Henry Cardinal Newman, D.D.". If the person had other doctoral level degrees, these would be added after D.D., and if the Cardinal was not also a Bishop the D.D. would be ommited. My point is, this sort of information should be included in the style guide. Snowboardpunk (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See #Proposed policy change: Cardinal John Doe below for indication of authoritative sources that say "Cardinal John Henry Newman" is the correct form. In Wikipedia what counts is what reliable sources say, not the personal opinions of the editors. Lima (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Patriarch, Cardinal, or both?

What do we do with Catholic Patriarchs other than the pope? For the most part, they're not at the name specified in this policy, for example, Stéphanos II Cardinal Ghattas, and not Patriarch Stéphanos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Stéphanos II Cardinal Ghattas, nor Patriarch Stéphanos II Cardinal Ghattas of Alexandria. This also questions what to do with Eastern Rite patriarchs who are also cardinals. How about Latin rite minor patriarchs? Does the article stay at Michael Sabbah, or get moved to Patriarch Michael of Jerusalem or Patriarch Michael Sabbah of Jerusalem? We should form some guidelines, and while we're cleaning up from the recent renaming of all the cardinal articles is as good a time as any. Gentgeen 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Priests/Vicars?

I've had a bit of a look, but there doesn't appear to be any guidelines on Wikipedia regarding the naming conventions of Priests, Vicars, and other various clergy. The reason I bring this up is because of a dispute about the naming of the article Father David Bauer, over whether 'Father' should be in the title, or whether that article should be made into a redirect. Obviously each case should be judged on its individual merits, and it may be that Father David Bauer will remain as it is, seeing as there evidence that this is how he is known best. However, I propose that guidelines are drawn up regarding this, simply so similar disputes in the future can be easily resolved.

Naturally, the guidelines would follow standard WP conventions - that is, the religious title ('Father' or 'Reverend') should be omitted from the article title, except when this conflicts with what most English-speaking readers are likely to recognise. This is unlikely to have any radical impact on WP and will simply confirm what most editors are conforming to already (e.g. Rowan Williams, William S. Bowdern), but would provide useful guidance to new editors where there currently is none. Nuge | ^talk 13:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"there doesn't appear to be any guidelines on Wikipedia regarding the naming conventions of Priests, Vicars, and other various clergy." - well, there is: "don't include in page names". If it is needed for disambiguation (e.g. a "priest" and a "non-priest" sharing the same name), see wikipedia:naming conventions (people)#Qualifiers not between brackets. An example used there is that John Forrest (friar) is preferred over Blessed John Forrest.

Father Damien is also used as an example in that guideline (while nobody knows Jozef de Veuster).

David Bauer is apparently primarily known as a hockey player, so maybe also look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nick names, pen names, stage names, cognomens it uses some "hockey player" examples. if "Father" is part of his usual name as a hockey player it should be included (like Scotty Bowman instead of William Scott Bowman)

If you're rather looking for how to represent titles like "priest", "vicar" in article text, maybe have a look at wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) (and its talk page). --Francis Schonken 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. I just thought perhaps the guidlines ought to be clarified for these specific titles, so that any future confusion could be avoided. Nuge | ^talk 16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Different faiths use father, rector, vicar etc. Anglo-Catholics (High Church Anglicans) use Father as do Roman Catholics. Most mainstream Anglicans in the Anglican Communion use Vicar while some (for example in Ireland) use Rector. They mean something different are not the same. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops

I propose that a convention be introduced in Wikipedia to name Orthodox hierarchs in the manner standard within Orthodox literature, namely [HIERARCHICAL TITLE] [FIRST NAME] ([SURNAME]) of [LOCATION OF DIOCESE] - e.g. 'Bishop Basil (Osborne) of Amphipolis'.

This practice seems to be being followed just now in the body text of Orthodox wikipedia articles, but certain articles (e.g. the article headed 'Anthony Bloom' not 'Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh') do not reflect this practice.

This would bring wikipedia policy regarding the naming of Orthodox hierarchs in line with its already established policy of naming Roman Catholic and Coptic hierarchs according to their titles, in the manners customary within these Churches.

Maxim662 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki.org's Style manual [6] suggests a similar naming convention, but without the titles (e.g. John I of Antioch, Alexei II (Ridiger) of Moscow, Theodosios (Hanna) of Sebastia, etc.) It seems the Wikipedia consensus is that 'titles are bad', and they are not used for monarchs, saints, etc.. The exception seems to be Popes and Orthodox clergy (Metropolitan through Bishop). I propose adopting OrthodoxWiki's standard. --Fjmustak (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of titles in article names - suggest changing Pope Innocent IX to Innocent IX, etc.

As far as I can tell, the English and Portuguese Wikipedias are the only ones that think all the Popes need to be designated "Pope" in their article names. It just seems good general practice to me for all articles on individuals to be called after the subject's (papal) name without any titles. We generally don't have "King," "President," "Bishop," "Doctor," "Professor," or "Duke" as the first word of an article name, so this is a plea for consistency and tidiness I'm making here. Google Books gives 646 results for "Innocent IX," but only 99 for "Pope Innocent IX," 88 for "Pape Innocent IX," etc. So it's also a plea for the standard usage of scholarly books on Church history and other subjects. Wareh 02:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While the only Innocent IX in Wikipedia is the pope, there are several non-popes called, for example, John VIII or Leo VI. jnestorius^(talk) 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but this situation is extremely common throughout the encyclopedia, and is usually dealt with by parenthetical disambiguation as needed (Polemon (scholarch), Leo VI (Pope)). Wareh 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leo VI (Pope)? Yuk! The current papal convention is more in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Though we don't have Queen Elizabeth II, neither do we have Elizabeth II; we have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Also, we have Pope John XVI rather than Pope John XVI of Rome, even though we do have Pope John XVI of Alexandria, so there's already a concession in recognition of the greater profile of the Roman Catholic pope. Also, there are flaws in your google test. Comparing a Wikipedia article's title with a book's content is not comparing like with like. In the body of the Wikipedia article, he is called "Innocent IX" with no preceding "Pope", in conformance with your preference. Browsing the first few pages of "Innocent IX" matches, most are lists of popes, religious histories, etc, where his being pope is obvious from the context. A Wikipedia page title has not yet established any context, so the title naturally may need to do more work in that regard. In a similar way, searching for "John Paul II" in google book titles I find 33, 16 of which also include the word "Pope". jnestorius^(talk) 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Western bishops proposal

I think this line should be added regarding Western bishops and archbishops:

For bishops and archbishops in the western world, do not use their episcopal or archiepiscopal title in the article name unless necessary for disambiguation.

I personally hate X, Bishop of Y titles because so often bishops hold many sees and not often is one clearly more important and because it is so rarely done on wikipedia, doing it creates inconsistency which makes the articles difficult to find. I've written hundreds of articles about bishops and generally always use (bishop) to dab a name, or if that is not enough, I use death date. I would like to propose something along those lines too, though I'm less sure what others will think of turning this into guideline. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this should not be a way of disambiguating. George Abbot (archbishop of Canterbury) seems to me a much better way of disambiguating, if we need to go beyond just "(bishop)". john k 03:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with X, Bishop of Y in general. What exactly is the problem besides a personal distaste? Does the proposal mean that Jocelin should be moved to Jocelin (bishop) or Jocelin (bishop of Glasgow)? He isn't even the only "Jocelin (bishop)", but if "Jocelin (bishop of Glasgow)", why not "Jocelin, Bishop of Glasgow"? I prefer a comma and a capital to two parentheses. If all you are saying is that a bishop who has an absolutely unambiguous name should not be title X, Bishop of Y I have no problem, but if you are suggesting that any other form should be used for ambiguous names, I don't agree. If you are saying that we should invent other forms of disambiguation for bishops that avoid their episcopal titles (i.e. Jocelin of Melrose) that seems like a lot of work just to avoid X, Bishop of Y, which is a lot like John, King of England. The proposal needs to be specific about how to disambiguate when need be in order to solve the problems that incited it. If death dates, then say it. If title, then say that. If something else, then say that. [Personally, I see no problem titling a bishop by his last see, since that was usually considered a promotion over previous appointments.] Srnec (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be fair, Srnec. ;) My problem with the the format that you seem to prefer is that making it standard will create a lot of problems for bishops who move between sees. This isn't a problem if all a bishop does is move from a bishopric to archbishopric, but in provinces such as Leon, Scotland, in the Italian provinces and to a certain extent France, bishops often move between dioceses not clearly superior to another. The other problem is that most bishops by default are named by their full personal name. The bishops we're dealing with here are ones that needed dabbed. So if John whose surname is not known and who is the third bishop of diocese X is to be called "John III, Bishop of x", why shouldn't the others be called by that form? Similarly, what if there are gaps in the info about bishop lists. Was John III really the third John to be bishop, or only the third known John? Say the wiki editor compiles a list from a source that only covers 1200 to 1500, and starts naming them that form, and then another comes along with a better source (this has happened!) that reveals more of these guys, loads of pages would need to be moved, links fixed, a whole lot of unnecessary work. The format advocated above, still predominant on wiki, avoids making such names appear as anything but dabs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not afraid of inconsistency in bishop lists because I recognise that consistency would simply be impossible. I am not suggesting the X, Bishop of Y become a standard. "If no ambiguity, no disambiguation" is a good rule (save the rare circumstances where an unambiguous name may be misleading to the average reader). As to bishops moving around, your solution does not help us. If a bishop known only as Richard held three different sees in France, we are still stuck with how to dab him. "Richard (bishop)" is ambiguous itself.

How would your proposal cover this third known John of diocese x if he has no other name? He cannot be "John (bishop)" nor even (probably) "John III (bishop)". John of x? John III of x? John III, Bishop of x? I had to move John (bishop) and John II (bishop) because those pages are simply ambiguous. In fact, the first one was indeed used for two different bishops (of Sodor/Man and of Rochester). You cannot disambiguate "John" to an ambiguous title. That makes no sense. I'd prefer death or fluorit dates in such circumstances. And I really am unsure: what is your suggested solution to the "John III" case? Srnec (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too use death or floruit for such guys, or some other natural dab. "If no ambiguity, no disambiguation", is a good rule. For some of the reasons I incidated though the standard above is more flexible and less potentially confusing. My solution also has the benefit of not suggesting a standard. Also, most of the guys who'll need dabbed will have full names. Gavin Dunbar (Bishop of Aberdeen) and Gavin Dunbar (Archbishop of Glasgow) look like dabbings, Gavin Dunbar, Bishop of Aberdeen looks like an encyclopedic standard. On a different point, John was an example of a particular kind of problem which as you recognise X, Bishop of Y, does not solve. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We do need to decide something, I think. If for nothing else than I need to know what to do with the inconsistancies in the English medieval bishops, especially the Anglo-Saxon ones. Right now they are named all over the place, (yes, it's mainly my fault, and I want to fix it pretty soon) and I'd like to settle on a standard. I slightly lean towards John I (Bishop of Rochester) rather than the current John I, Bishop of Rochester, mainly because it seems like the ()'s is the current guideline at WP:MOSDAB. I have hopes of taking a number of these bishops to FAC and I can only imagine what would happen if they aren't named according to the MOS. Perhaps we might set out the options and conduct a poll? Ealdgyth | Talk 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I say hold a vote one it with all the options laid out, or perhaps a two-stage vote where the first question is what to use to dab and the second is how to present it (i.e. commas or parentheses). I recently wrote Bernard, Bishop of Gaeta and can see two other suggestions now on the table for how to rename him: Bernard (Bishop of Gaeta) to Bernard (died 1047). Are there others? He has no "surname" or patronymic, but Bernard of Gaeta would, to my knowledge, be basically unambiguous, but this could clearly not be a general solution. Srnec (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid the X of Place names unless they are used in the sources, i. e. Theobald of Bec is actually the normal name Theobald's known as, but Daniel of Selsey probably shouldn't be under that name as he's usually refered to as Daniel in the sources, so I'd prefer him to be Daniel (bishop of Selsey) with a second choice of Daniel, Bishop of Selsey. The main problem I see with using dates of death is that we don't always know that. In the Daniel case, we have no clue when he died, we just have a date when he appears as a bishop.

We also have to consider cases where people held more than one bishopric/office. Several guys held more than archbishopric, to make life even more fun. Obviously, if they held two bishoprics and one archbishopric, you dab them as the archbishopric, but if they held more than one office that is equal in rank, which do you choose? The last one? The first one? The one first established?

So we're looking at these choices: (1) X of Place (2) X (office) (3) X, Office of Place (4) X (d. Date) (5) X (office of place). Did I miss any options? Ealdgyth | Talk 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there has suddenly come opposition to the application of this guideline on the basis that it had not enough support, let me just add that I support the version of May 2008, which was stable for almost four months.[7]. Disambiguation should be between brackets instead of acting as if the "Bishop of X" part is actually a part of the name of someone. Fram (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was stable after being unilaterally changed when nobody is paying attention. I strongly object to the change. I don't really care what the guideline says, but when it I see articles being pointlessly moved... (Error in recent edit summary: it was discussed.) Srnec (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no real ideological issues at stake here. Surely we can just agree some guideline for stability and respectability in our articles? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the magic word "unilaterally". By now, there are three editors supporting some form of the change from April, and only one (i.e., well, "unilaterally") opposing it and reverting without any consensus. If you don't care what the guideline says, and other editors are in favour of the change, then why do you revert? As for "pointless" moves, the aim was to get some consistency when there was none. Of course, when you then revert some of the "pointless moves", the consistency goes down the drain again. A move does no harm, everyone can still find the article and no redlinks are created (while in some cases, some redlinks were removed by the move). No one expects you to make any effort in moving the articles, so I don't get why they bother you if you don't care what the guideline actually says anyway. I've done a small batch of such moves on November 24, the rest was done in September. I believe (I may forget one or two) that not one of these moves was reverted, apart from the few ones you did (I remember the Solomon ones[8], there were a few more I think). So it looks like both here on the guideline, as in actual practice, you are currently a lone voice against the consensus. While this is of course acceptable, you should not try to impose your opinion against the consensus, except on talk pages. Fram (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To Deacon: Agree that there are no ideological issues at stake, just asethetic ones. But those are not unimportant. And why can't you agree to my guideline? Why must we agree to yours? Most of the articles that Fram moved were perfectly stable and respectable, so I don't see that that's at issue.

To Fram: If it is irrelevant that the edits were "unilateral", then I expect to hear the nonsense about our guidelines, policies, and conventions being based on consensus dropped. But the fact is that whenever somebody supports an existing policy, guideline, etc. they say it is based on "consensus". They almost never are. 3-1 (us, Deacon, john k) or even 4-2 (including Ealdgyth and Adam Bishop, who has reverted some of your moves if you recall) is not a consensus at a project this large. Why should the guideline deprecate a common format found throughout Wikipedia just because 3 or 4 editors have expressed preference for another format? Note that the top of this page says "it is a generally accepted standard". Is it really?

Personally, I don't like the look of either the comma or the parentheses, but I find the former less intrusive. As far as I'm aware Deacon only disagrees on the latter point. Why can't we allow the titles of individual articles to be determined by their creators, since there cannot be perfect consistency among bishops anyway, and your moves have not created more consistency. I would support a guideline that suggested there should be consistency within a line of episcopal succession (insofar as it is possible), but not across all Western bishops.

(Most of your moves went unreverted b/c I don't have the time or the patience to do that sort of thing. I did fix your bad moves and some others that created inconsistency.) Srnec (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Saints: move requests from St. Peter->>Peter the Apostle and St. Andrew->>Andrew

The policy as now stated says "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the 'Saint', unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion."

All apostles' articles are now renamed without "Saint" except for St Peter and St Andrew. The move request from St. Peter->>Peter the Apostle was closed 2 days ago for lack of consensus, and St. Andrew->>Andrew the Apostle is still pending with much discussion. It seems a lack of parity when the policy can be ignored by popular vote, rather than because of the "only recognisable by its inclusion" provision. Without consistency of application of policy, why should editors in the future stretch their own preferences to cooperate with policy? It is an awkward situation at best.

Please assist editors at St Peter and St Andrew who are trying to support the policy. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish clergy

The Jewish section doesn't really have any content. The article it links to is only about the English spelling for people's names when they are originally written in Hebrew.

In Judaism there are several clergy known as Rabbi. For modern figures the general principle 'don't include the word Rabbi' seems to be adhered to, but for some historic figures it is completely ignored.

A good example is Rabbeinu Tam - neither part of the article title is his actual name, both are honourifics; his actual name is Jacob ben Meir (this is just a redirect).

Similarly Rashbam is just an acronym - RaShBaM = Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir. So why isn't the article under Samuel ben Meir (anglicised spelling) or Shmuel ben Meir (alternative transliteration)?

Could someone help come up with a policy on this? (see also Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Honourifics (other than in Islam)

Newman Luke (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names. Rabbeinu Tam and Rashbam are universally known by those names, and the article is properly titled ala Mother Theresa. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed policy change for naming of cardinals in the body of an article

An edit elsewhere in Wikipedia set me looking for rules on the choice between the forms "Cardinal John Doe" and "John Cardinal Doe". I found the following:

• Reuters Handbook of Journalism has: "At first reference Cardinal John Doe. At subsequent references the cardinal or Doe";
• The Associated Press stylebook, quoted by Douglas LeBlanc on Anglicanism out of AP style at the Times?, agrees: "The preferred form for first reference is to use Cardinal, Archbishop or Bishop before the individual's name: Cardinal Timothy Manning, archbishop of Los Angeles. On second reference, Manning or the cardinal.
• The religious Publications Style Book of the Franciscan Holy Name Province likewise lays down: "Use the form 'Cardinal John Smith' instead of the older 'John Cardinal Smith'."

I think the first two are the most important. Wikipedia is a secular, not a religious publication, and should, I think, generally follow the conventions in other secular publications. The choice of both Reuters and Associated Press is clear and concordant. Should Wikipedia not follow the same practice?

In the past, the opinions of individual ecclesiastics were quoted in favour of one or other of the forms "Cardinal John Doe" and "John Cardinal Doe". The fact that they were ecclesiastics, not journalists, weakens their authority on this matter for a secular publication like Wikipedia, but a more important consideration is that each of them only gave the personal opinion of a single indiviual. In contgrast, the rules laid down by Reuters and Associated Press (and also those of the Franciscan Holy Name Province) are decisions of corporative entities.

In the past, also, the convention by which cardinals sign as "John Cardinal Doe" was taken as implying that they should be referred to in the same way. That argument has already been answered by the analogy with the Pope, who signs as "Benedictus PP. XVI" (Benedict Pope XVI), but who is referred to as "Pope Benedict XVI", and with Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, who signs as "Elizabeth R(egina)", but who is not referred to as Elizabeth Queen. The stylebooks of Reuters and Associated Press are, I think, an even stronger proof of the invalidity of the argument.

It seems to me that Wikipedia should align itself with other secular publications and make it a rule that the "Cardinal John Doe" form is the one to use. Lima (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't see Jack Archbishop Jones or James President Johnson, so why do some editors use John Cardinal Doe in articles. In Naming conventions (clergy): Cardinals makes a big mention about the full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title "Cardinal". However, at the end of the section effectively cancels anything said and allows editors to insert "cardinal" between first and last name. The Vatican's official website use "Cardinal Forename Surname" - [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Since the Vatican uses that style, then so should Wikipedia. The guideline should be altered to only allow "Cardinal Forename Surname" or "Forename Surname" in articles. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Though the Vatican lays down no rule about the matter, it follows a practice that agrees with the rule given by Reuters and Associated Press (and followed by secular sources in general, which can be supposed to have their own stylebooks that coincide on this matter with those of the two press agencies) and also by academic religious sources (the one that I have cited is quite unlikely to be the only one). You can find on the Vatican website one or two cases (out of tens of thousands) of "John Cardinal Doe" in references to cardinals - quite apart from reproductions of signatures, which are of course in the "John Cardinal Doe" form - but what rule the Vatican normally follows is quite clear.

I still think that, in matters of style, what secular sources say is the most important guideline for Wikipedia practice. Lima (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now moved this section down and prefixed the heading with the words "Proposed policy change". Lima (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - The guideline/policy should be changed. As Lima said above, we don't see Benedictus PP. XVI or Joannes Paulus PP. II in articles just because they sign their name that way. They are refered as Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. So it should be the same with cardinals. We shouldn't refer them by their signatures, John Cardinal Doe, but either as John Doe or Cardinal John Doe, or piped as Cardinal John Doe. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - The guideline/policy should be changed for consistency and clarity. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - We should follow the rule given by authoritative objective sources such as the news agencies cited above. Lima (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, and the reasoning above misses the point: the cited style guides may have some value on how to name a cardinal in the body of an article (which belongs to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), not Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)). Also, most people seem to be commenting on something that is described differently in the actual naming conventions guideline than what they assume the description to be. Wonder how that comes? Anyway, too superficial to even consider a change to the actual guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not making clearer that this proposal is precisely about how to name a cardinal in the body of an article, a matter left undecided when last discussed. There is no suggestion that the rule for the title of an article should be changed from what was agreed earlier ("John Smith", without "Cardinal"). For greater clarity, I have now altered the heading. We're discussing a section of "Naming conventions (clergy)", not of some supposed narrower "Article titles (clergy)". Francis Schonken even seems to support the use of the "Cardinal John Smith" form in the body of an article, which is what's proposed. Lima (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please move the discussion as suggested to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), it has no place in ***naming convention*** guidelines, that by long-standing Wikipedia tradition are exclusively about the naming of articles; All style guidance that pertains to what happens in the body of articles, as traditionally, belongs in the "MoS" (Manual of Style) series of guidelines, in this case most suitably the "biographies" MoS I suppose. Even if you have 100% agreement on this point here at this Naming Conventions related talk page, then it still would not contain a permission to change the MoS guidance, and as said, for a change to the NC page, you're dealing with the wrong kind of content. I hope I was clear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I'll move it tomorrow. Lima (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Cardinals. Lima (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a late-comer to this but support Francis Schonken's suggestion to move the discussion. The article body is a MOS question. patsw (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose John Card. Doe is the correct form, established for centuries upon centuries; if the media wishes to get it wrong as a matter of house style, that's their choice, but we ought to get it right. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

naming convention associated with Eastern Orthodox officials

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think it is clear that this proposal has been rejected.--Aervanath (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The current naming convention for Eastern Orthodox officials (Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops) advocates the use of prefixes and titles as part of the article title. The direction regarding Western and Eastern religious officials is currently different, with no qualifiers used for Western officials but advocated for use for Eastern officials. I am seeking comment as to whether the us of religious titles is appropriate or contrary to the spirit of WP:NCP. I’ve brought it forward as a RfC and not strictly at the talk page because the level of participation on the talk page appears to be low and the number of articles affected by this issue is large.Labattblueboy (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• I suggest that; 1) the entire Eastern Orthodox Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops section be removed and common naming be used for all clergy. 2) prefixes only be used for the heads of each denomination. (ie Ignatius for the head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church, Ecumenical Patriarch (as the first among equals) for the Orthodox Church organization) and not be used for eastern Archbishops, Metropolitans or Patriarchs (other than the Ecumenical Patriarch).--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know much about the subject, but I don't see why there would be a difference between Eastern and Western. Maurreen (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There is much less difference than there would appear. We use Pope for all the traditional Bishops of Rome, even those, like Clement, who are rather unlikely to have been bishops. Using Patriarch for all the Bishops of Constantinople or Alexandria would be the same principle; the reason for the clause under discussion is largely the centuries of Constantinopolitan Bishops, like Archbishop Atticus of Constantinople, who had no surname known to us, and for whom Patriarch may be debateable.
  • The real question is why we are using Pope Timothy II of Alexandria and not what everybody calls him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate, in such instances to follow the model of WP:NCROY and have something like Timothy II of Alexandria of even Timothy II?--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should we treat the Church of Rome and the Church of Alexandria differently? We cannot change one as long as we are infested with religious chauvinists, and I don't think that we should allow the paucity of anglophone Copts with access to the internet to become the basis of our decisions. What would be appropriate would be Clement of Rome and Timothy the Cat, respecitively; but I see no real hope for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate, in such instances to follow the model of WP:NCROY and have something like Atticus of Constantinople instead of Archbishop Atticus of Constantinople. I don't have any answers when it comes to the actual head of each denomination, except maybe only including the city of ref. when disambiguation is necessary.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because NCROY specifically differentiates between royalty and other princes; we use Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, not Charlotte of Luxembourg. For Constantinople, this has the further advantage of distinguishing Atticus from Arcadius. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but, as I see it, "the heads of each denomination" were excepted from the proposed change and, since the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria is clearly the head of a denomination, nobody is proposing that (at least from the time when the title Patriarch or Pope came into use for him) he be treated differently from the Pope (of Rome). Personally, I think the exception could well be extended to all heads of autocephalous churches and so to all who have the title of Patriarch, including the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, and to any Archbishop who heads an autocephalous church, as in the case of Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens. But I see no more reason for prefixing "Metropolitan" to the name of an Eastern prelate than for prefixing "Bishop" or "Metropolitan Archbishop" to the name of a Western prelate. There may well be much less reason than for the see of Rome for using the title "Patriarch" proleptically for members of the succession line of, for instance, Alexandria before the title of Pope or Patriarch came into use. It may well be the other way round, if it is claimed that the title Pope was used for the Alexandrian church leader earlier than for the Roman. That possible difference between usage for East and West would perhaps best be discussed separately from the proposal here. Esoglou (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC: One needs to grant that the Wikipedia-wide convention is founded on good reason, else bio entries become riots of current and past titles, pseudonyms, etc. Living persons may yet be promoted, defrocked, or become famous under other names. That said, it would seem that users are highly unlikely to ever search for other than the ultimate titled versions of the EO (or other) religious' name, after death. So, I would argue that entries on living persons should conform to the rule; and entries on those passed should conform to the "most used" exception, with the civil name provided, for search-ability and historical value , in the first paragraph of the entry. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Removal of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title. These include (but are not limited to) Pope, Grand Ayatollah, Ayatollah, Mawlawi, Mullah, Ignatius, Ecumenical Patriarch, Patriarch, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. Religion appears to be the only area of wikipedia where titles are used. As per WP:NCP, titular prefixes would only per permissible if it was the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Suppport as nominator.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Each sector would best be decided separately. In particular, "Pope Name number" is, I think, how Popes are generally known, rather than just as "Name number". There would be the added complication of having to call some of them "Name number (pope)" or even "Name number (pope of Rome") to distinguish them from kings, patriarchs etc. of the same name and number. Esoglou (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, this isn't the only area of Wikipeida where titles appear... we usually include titles for secular rulers, especially when disabiguation is needed... for example: Boniface III, Margrave of Tuscany, as distinguished from Pope Boniface III. That said, I could see the disambiguation of religious leaders conforming to the same format used by secular rulers... with the name first, and then the title. Under this format the article on the Pope would be Boniface III, Pope (or even Boniface III, Bishop of Rome, which is a more "correct" title.) That said, per WP:COMMONNAME does indicate that we should follow the usage of our reliable sources... and it is true that an overwhelming number of sources use the "Pope XXX", "Grand Ayatollah YYY", and "Father ZZZ" format. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of many examples. Take also, for instance, the various Wikipedia-articled people listed in the disambiguation page Leo I Esoglou (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you missed in the proposal is to continue to use qualifier if disambiguation is needed, as is done with saints.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I added my comment on returning here after allowing some time for reflection, and did not notice at first that you had made changes. My main aim was to comment negatively on the idea of disambiguating homonymous Popes with "(Catholic Pontiff)", which I thought quite unsuitable. I removed my comment on that matter, but left my opening phrase. I did not want to comment hurriedly on what you think I missed. Even after giving it more reflection, I still think that it is better and more straightforward to continue to mark the Popes as a single series by calling each one, if necessary proleptically, "Pope Name number". "(Bishop of Rome)", though much better than "(Catholic Pontiff)", is unnecessarily long and uses a phrase that in Wikipedia is just a redirect to "Pope". As I said, I prefer the straightforwarfd system now in use for the whole series of Popes, and I don't believe you can win consensus for changing it. Esoglou (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation doesn't neessarily mean using parenthases disambiguation. For instance, for Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein al-Ansari the "Ayatollah" could esasily be removed without there being any confusion because there is no other Mohammad Hussein al-Ansari. Same goes for Pope Macarius III of Alexandria, which could easily be shortened to Macarius III without any issue of confusion with other articles. That would be different than for those named John V whereupon leaving the titular prefix might be the most neutral way handling disimbuation (as laid out in the Qualifiers not between brackets section of WP:NCP). --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment.These are crisp examples. As I have mentioned below, a bit jolting to me. I'd rather see "King John X" and "Pope John XXIII". I can immediately orient myself. With "Macarius..." I wouldn't know offhand whether he was King, Pope, or Roman Emperor without something else (which theoretically would not be necessary because name is not actually ambiguous). Student7 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - drawing on the above observations, it would seem like a huge amount of work we would be creating for ourselves—to the consternation of many, many editors that have carefully chosen the particular title style for a particular (valid) reason. Futhermore, how would we rename all the articles? Given that specific exclusions are to be applied, and these are not easy to define with great precision, IMO, it would have to be by hand unless a very clever bot designer can be brought forward. I am not really sure this is practical. I might have missed some obvious point, however! Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Right now, Indian Christians are often using in the title His Holiness Baselios Gregorios X, Catholicos", that is, honorifics, plus more than one title. I have been fighting a battle, nearly alone, against that. Anything would be an improvement! Worse, they are sometime embedded with the name. So "Mar" means "Blessed". One common name is "Marthoma" or "Blessed Thomas." I can't really retroactively dissect that one so I let it go. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support in principle, although I acknowledge the logistical difficulties it might present. Powers ^T 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Each use should be based on how the person is better known and what is the most common usage in the reliable sources and specifically in the news. Wikid^as© 12:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Depends on how the subject is known. My classic example is Mother Theresa, who has the eponymous article despite being truly named Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu. Most of the time, the article name should be without honorific, but in the cases like Mother Theresa or Rabbeinu Tam, where the person is basically never referred to by their real names, the article should reflect the known name, even if it has an honorific, as per Wikipedia:Name#Common names. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe the proposal accounts for such cases, as obviously Teresa and Tam are ambiguous by themselves. Powers ^T 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question. I'm assuming that this does not care about redirects? At best, this allows time for changing to the new way. At worst, this allows reactionaries to use whatever name suits them "forever". Student7 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This needed to be proposed. I'm glad it was. Having said that, it is too much of a jolt for me. I'm just too used to "Pope ZZZ VI" or whatever. ZZZ VI isn't going to hack it. Or for out readers either. Student7 (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The policy already covers cases where a common name is different than the prescribed form "title-name-ordinal-see". For all the other cases, it follows by necessity that the individuals concerned are not well-known, and hence there is need of disambiguation. For eastern clergy, where this all began, how are we supposed to distinguish for instance between the numerous Johns of various dioceses and the emperors of Constantinople and Trebizond? The present guideline is awkward, but precise. Using parentheses instead would be a possible choice, but it is not really different than the policy in place. Constantine ✍ 20:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Student 7 and Cplakidas Flamarande (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4