Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Saints

There was a recent move discussion about Bartholomew the Apostle. By my reading of the current naming conventions for saints he should be moved to plain "Bartholomew" since he is already the primary meaning of this name, but this ended inconclusively since some people thought he should be moved to "Saint Bartholomew". It might be worth re-examining the naming conventions for saints e.g. Ulrich of Augsburg has to be there to distinguish him from other Saint Ulrichs, but Paul of Tarsus is already the primary meaning of "Saint Paul", should he be moved there?PatGallacher (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi

For a discussion of the title "rabbi", please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Rabbi. Thank you. Debresser(talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitals for (Arch)bishop

According to this convention, titles "Bishop of" (and presumably "Archbishop of", as at Gerard (Archbishop of York)) should not be capitalized- i.e. it should be Gerard (archbishop of York). Is there a reason for this? I would expect such titles to be capitalized.--Kotniski (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Methinks Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people is relevant. Deacon of Pndapetzim(Talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It says there "the correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun" (and hence capitalized, as in "King of France"). Do these bishops' titles not fall into that category?--Kotniski (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the dab is category rather than title, following the fashion of Joe Bloggs (bishop). It is Gerard, an archbishop of York, rather than Gerard, Archbishop of York. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Still seems a bit odd to me. An "archbishop of York" would be something like a "butcher of York" - an archbishop who comes from or lives in York. Which I suppose he was, but it's not really what we have in mind when we say he was "A/archibishop of York" - what we mean is that he held that title. (Conceivably someone could be given that title without ever going to York.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is only ever one archbishop at any one time ... the idiom is solid and I don't think it would ever be understood in the butcher sense. But I'm not fussed about it. I'll leave it to others to comment and judge. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim(Talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the guideline was originally with the capitals. The "unnecesary capitals" were removed by Francis Schonken a year ago[1].Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that diff and the next one he's just removed some examples that don't correspond with the guideline. Indeed, Thomas de Rossy (Bishop of the Isles) and Roger (Bishop of Ross) still have the capitals, so the guideline as written is not universally followed. I think it should be changed in two ways: to prescribe the capital, and to use commas instead of brackets (as with your suggested solution for the abbot below).--Kotniski (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Those articles predate Francis' changes ... yes ... we need to sort out the capital thing with general feedback (I didn't choose the lower case system and couldn't care less). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued at #Bishops below.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Abbots and priors (and commendators)

We as yet lack guidelines for heads of monasteries. See Radulf (d. 1220) for an awkward case. Abbots are inherently notable, but they are not in general as important as bishops (with exceptions like Monte Cassino, Iona, Clairvaux, Durham, as so on) and often little more than their first names are recorded (see, for instance, lists on Template:Scottish Church). It's hard to think of anything that can work other than the following:

Radulf II, Abbot of Kinloss

There are many famous heads of monastic houses who are better known or are saints (who have their own guidelines), e.g. Columba, Adomnan,Turgot of Durham, Waltheof of Melrose, and so on. We need to consider this too. Thoughts? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The form you suggest (looks like it would be Radulf II, Abbot of Kinloss, in this case) looks good. In fact I don't know why we don't use this form as a general rule (Gerard, Archishop of York, instead of using brackets) - it would also be consistent with the way most royals and nobles' articles are titled.--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of bishops there are just too many known better with other names (and the office of bishop is usually taken by clerks rather than monks).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to title all bishops like that; only when we need disambiguation (possibly only when we need disambiguation from other bishops; though actually I'd prefer "Bishop of X" as a disambiguator rather than plain "(bishop)", even if the second was sufficient).--Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to mean another round of bishop-moving? (whimpers). I really don't care where they are (although I lean towards no parenthesis), but can we decide and keep things in one place for a while? Seems like every time I turn around someone's moving poor Gerard ...Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, bishops are staying were they are (as far as I'm concerned anyways). The point I was making to Kotniski was that so many bishops are known by other names that this kind of system is pointless and counter-productive (which is the benefit of the current bishop system).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Except the "current bishop system" seems to be a random mixture. I'm not proposing that all bishops be moved to "X, Bishop of Y", only that those that are currently in the form "X (B/bishop of Y)" be standardized to "X, Bishop of Y". This would be a definite improvement, I think: it would be consistent with what is generally considered to be correct capitalization, and also consistent with the way Wikipedia generally handles people's titles in article names (look at the dukes and so on). It would also set a consistent pattern that could be easily followed in other cases, like the abbots mentioned above - we shouldn't have a random mixture of conventions for different types of people.--Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Two things: not all abbots are inherently notable, in fact many are not, and should only be added to a list of abbots of Abbey X. As for the name, for the time before they had full names, they should follow the general naming conventions. A name like Randulf II (abbot of Abbeydale) works perfectly, if there are multiple randulf II's. For someone like Thurcytel or Conrad Tanner, nothing more is needed. Fram(talk) 12:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's a strange assertion ... when would an abbot not be inherently notable? I imagine modern ones wouldn't be, but medieval ones? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't be inherintly notable when their abbey is not of much importance (every abbey is probably notable, but some are of very little interest for most of their history), and they have no other distinctions. An abbot like Jean Drommaire, of Beaurepart Abbey, is listed as being abbot for a year and a half between 1450 and 1452. As far as I can tell, nothing more is known about him or his reign. Why would he be notable? IsWilliam de Louteburghe notable? Look at Abbot of Saddell: we don't know the name of most of them, and the rest has no distinguishing features either. Perhaps with further research, an article can be written about one or two, but the others? It's really not hard to find many examples of abbeys where the abbots are not as such notable. Fram (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They are still notable, irrespective of little knowledge. An abbot even of a small monastery even for a day was still a notable prelate, much more notable than a footballer playing for Kettering_Town_F.C. even though the latter exists today. Not much room for argument here, though you are of course entitled to your opinion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not much room for argument? Your statements are your opinion, mine are supported by our WP:N guidelines (WP:BIO and the like). That a group of twenty monks chosses one of them as their abbot, doesn't make him notable at all. That our guidelines on professional sporters are much too broad doesn't mean that we should ignore them for other people as well. Fram (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• The form Radulf II, Abbot of Kinloss would reflect the format adopted for British peers, and one that it being proposed for European monarchs. If they have surnames (or patonymics), "Radulf Smith" or "Radulf Smith (abbot)" would be preferable. Abbots of whom we know little or nothing will not need articles; if the information will provide no more than a stub, it would be better to incorporate that little in an article on the abbey. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• In practice, I would probably agree that it would often be better to keep such abbots in abbot lists. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why abbots (and bishops) can't follow the general rule (disambiguation in bracjets) and have to use the exception used for royals and peers. Radulf II (Abbot of Kinloss) is equally clear as what you suggest, and follows the general article naming conventions. Why should we change that? Fram (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bishops

Here's my proposal, then, in a new section for clarity: where the guideline (WP:NCCL#Western bishops and archbishops) says "use the formWilliam Turner (bishop of Salford) rather than William Turner, Bishop of Salford", change it to read: "use the form William Turner, Bishop of Salford." Arguments as stated above (to conform to correct English usage - particularly in terms of the capital - and to conform to general Wikipedia treatment of personal titles - in terms of the capital and the comma).--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Not for bishops. Almost all bishops are known by other names, many have different sees of equal rank ... current system works. Perhaps revisit if the sovereigns change goes through and the X N, Y of Z system becomes more standard on wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, how many times :( THIS ISN'T ABOUT ALL BISHOPS, I'm not proposing changing the ones which are known by alternative names or just disambiguated by "(bishop)", it's the ones that are disambiguated explicitly by title - and for such people, the "Name comma Title" system is absolutely standard already. All that's being proposed is that titles be correctly capitalized and that commas be used where parentheses are used at present, nothing more revolutionary than that. --Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I understand you're proposal. But it doesn't matter ... because so few will need the disambiguator, bishops as a category don't need to be treated as special and can be disambiguated like other articles (e.g., as a random example, those at Scott Brown (disambiguation)).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the whole point! Other articles are treated like this: either generic disambiguator in brackets (like those at Scott Brown), or "Name comma Title" (properly capitalized), like Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn. So it would be with bishops under my proposal -either the generic "(bishop)", or where that's insufficient, the correctly capitalized ", Bishop of X". --Kotniski (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An episcopal title is not like a baronial title, where [in the latter's case] the title itself is the notable point. It's Scott Brown (Scottish footballer), not Scott Brown, Celtic number 8. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow - "Celtic number 8" is certainly not a title of this type, nor is "bishop", but "Bishop of Salford" is. (It has nothing to do with whether the title is the notable point - Martin's baronial title certainly isn't the most notable thing about him - but if, for whatever reason, we're including the person's title in the article title in addition to their name, then we do it with correct capitalization and with a comma rather than brackets. I could give way on the comma if there was some good reason to, but I don't see any excuse for using capitalization which goes against good English usage.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not following you, sorry ... what's capitalization got to do with anything? Re my point, I've stated it already. Bishops (modern ones especially) switch titles too often while so few need the disambiguator that bishops as a category don't need to be treated as special and can be disambiguated like other articles (as Scott Brown). Having one in ten bishops as X Y, Bishop of Z is just odd. I'd only favour the latter for bishops if it were going to be used by the vast majority of bishops.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't understand my proposal, since you couldn't possibly ask "what's capitalization got to do with anything" if you understood that the proposal is mainly about changing capitalization. Yes, I agree that bishops don't need to be treated as special - which is why I'm proposing that they not be treated as special, but brought into line with what we do with all other types of people with titles. It's not changing the fact that one in 10 are disambiguated differently from the others - only the typographical appearance of the disambiguator is to be changed.--Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't follow why you are mentioning capitalization when I've already said I don't care whether the form Joe Bloggs (Bishop of Seat) or Joe Bloggs (bishop of Seat) is used. Your proposal is about turning both into Joe Bloggs, Bishop of Seat, and this is what I oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, they have a name (John Doe) and a function which can be used as disambiguation if needed, and then in the same format as other disambiguations: so "John Doe" becomes "John Doe (bishop)", and only when there are more of these, "John Doe (bishop of Worchester)". There is no reason at all to make an exception for bishops. As to whether it should be (bishop of Worchester) or (Bishop of Worchester), that's a minor and separate point: the Bishop of Worchester is a bishop of Worchester, and I interpret "John Doe (bishop of Worchester)" to mean "John Doe (a bishop of Worchester)". It's not about their title, it's about their function, their job: John Doe was a bishop of Worchester. Fram (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is a title - you don't say "a bishop of Worcester" meaning that it's a bishop from or working in Worcester, you mean a bishop who has that particular title, Bishop of Worcester.--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't say, I do. It is a bishop who has the seat of Worcester, one in a long list of such bishops. Take a look at e.g.[2] or [3] or [4] or many more similar ones. If you want it combined with names: [5], [6], [7] or [8], all were "bishop of Worcester". yes, examples with capital B can just as easily be found, but it is plainly not true that "bishop of Worcester" is not used to refer to particular persons. Fram (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it's not used to refer to particular persons; and none of your examples actually show the title combined with a name, but it's true they do show that the title is sometimes written with a small "b" (though I'm sure it's much more commonly written with a capital, especially when it is combined with a name, and especially in a modern context - and as I say, doing it that way would be consistent with what Wikipedia does with other people with titles).--Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But our naming convention doesn't "combine it with a name" either, that's why it is in brackets. I am not proposing that we have "John Doe, bishop of Worcester", the guideline calls for "John Doe (bishop of Worcester)", which is a completely different thing. But I repeat, whether we should have "John Doe (Bishop of Worcester)" or "John Doe (bishop of Worcester)" is a discussion worth having, and one where I can see the arguments for both sides. I do oppose however any variation on "John Doe, Bishop of Worcester". Fram (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion The normal form should be John Doe (bishop): bishop is the normal disambiguator. If there are two John Does who have been bishops, I would suggest that the format for Brtish peerages should be used (but without an ordinal), as John Smith, Bishop of Worcester. This measn that the article title includes his highest substantive title, which is also the practice for British peers. This is also much what is being propsoed for monarchs Under a current discussion. However, it should be rarely necessary to include the see (or latest or final see). The Anglican practice of tranlating bishops from one see to another should also discourage the inclusion of the see in the article title. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is just a restatement of the suggestion above. Those of us who oppose it have commented already (just above). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what the objection is. Why is it bad to bring bishops (when their titles are mentioned) into line with other titled folk whose titles are mentioned? And in doing so, set a standard that could be applied to abbots or anyone else for whom this kind of disambiguation is found to be required?--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, your confusion is quite understandable and I suppose that Deacon could have expressed himself a little better here. The point which he is trying to get across, I think at least, is that the style 'X, bishop of Y' looks more official and so may attach too much weight to a single position, while brackets are great for disambiguation, pure and simple, without implying anything more than that. If you interpret the use of punctuation in this way, 'X (bishop of Y)' would seem to leave more room for the possibility that X controlled more than one see or got promoted to another. There are no doubt many individual cases where your suggestion would present no problems, but there's something to be said though in favour of a consistent arrangement 'X (bishop of Y)', rather than the pair of them as options to choose from on individual merits.Cavila (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

This discussion seems to have petered out, but I'm very much opposed to the (seemingly made without discussion) edits to this guideline mandating "unnecessary" capitalisation. In British English, certainly, such capitals are necessary. I'm not much bothered either way whether the disambiguation for identically named bishops is John Smith (Bishop of London) or John Smith, Bishop of London, but it definitely shouldn't be John Smith (bishop of London). Proteus (Talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Proteus. Describe John Smith as "bishop of London", and he could be a bishop simply associated with, perhaps merely living in London. Call him "Bishop of London", and you indicate that he holds or held that precise title. Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This makes me cry. I don't have any opinion about whether (Bishop of London) is better or worse than (bishop of London), but over the last week my watchlist has been overrun with moves to the latter and moving them back now would be a nightmare ... there are lists, templates and so on to be re-updated, not to mention the work. Is it such a big deal? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You and me both. (beats head on a wall). Perhaps it is best to decide once and for all and only THEN make changes? I slightly lean towards "Bishop" rather than "bishop" but I'm not sure it's worth the huge pile of watchlist changes either.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you recognize the assertion of Esoglou that "bishop of London" implies we're talking about a bishop from London? To my mind "of" is not normally used like this in modern English, and if so it would require at least the indefinite article, and perhaps special punctuation or rephrasing like "a bishop, of London [verb]". But my English isn't necessarily representative ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine is that it's more a title, and we traditionally use title case for titles applied to people. But it's not been enough of a preference for me to fight the page moves, but if they all get moved back... (As an aside, I moved Baldwin of Exeter today, as I've been unable to turn up that usage in any reliable source for him, but instead of Baldwin (Arcbishop of Canterbury) or Baldwin (archbishop of Canterbury, either of which would have been my preferred way of disambiguation, I used Baldwin of Forde to keep the silly moving down on my watchlist... when I have to avoid such things, it tells me there isn't much consensus either way, and our "guideline" here is more trouble than its worth.Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the guideline is useful as an aid (a guide!) for people not much interested in article titles to write articles without worrying about the matter ... such as is still very much useful on Wikipedia due to the fact that only a fraction of historical bishops have articles just now. But it is only a guideline: there to guide. I think we may be losing sight of its purpose when we start moving hundreds of articles back and forth from "Joe Bloggs (bishop of Place)" to "Joe Bloggs (Bishop of Place)". And knowledgeable contributors shouldn't be pressured for diverging from it if they feel good reason, like giving a person more character (e.g. Baldwin of Forde) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is precisely that "John Smith (bishop of X)" can be understood as "a bishop of X" (cf. what Deacon says above), without having to write the indefinite article in explicitly; but that "John Smith (Bishop of X)" is much more unambiguously a title held by the person, and for that reason is preferable as an article title. I have nothing to add, and so will say no more. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing "Paul of Tarsus" as an example

"Paul of Tarsus" is offered as an example in the "Saints" section. The problem is the article Paul of Tarsus / Paul the Apostle / Saint Paul is subject to frequent rename discussions; and has been renamed between all of those three names a number of times over the years. Therefore I have removed it as an example from this section. Examples should be reserved for unambiguous examples, which "Paul of Tarsus" is not.Adpete (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion

Editors here will be interested in a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic) in regards that proposed guideline.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pope article titles

I'd like to propose adding a sentence allowing common English usage to the current guidance on titling articles about popes. This would bring this guideline into conformity with other biographical article guidance, as well as with broader Wikipedia policy favoring usage of common names in article titles. The impetus for this is the current move request from Pope Clement I to Clement of Rome, which is the name by which he is clearly most commonly known. (See this ngram). At least one editor has expressed a preference to change the title - but only if it is conformance with this guideline. So I thought I'd see if we could get this guideline in conformance with other guidelines. :)

Here's how some other guidance (including from this very guideline) reads:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns: "Some monarchs have a cognomen or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)#Patriarchs: "...if there is already a well established name in English for a particular patriarch, use that format instead. For example, use John Chrysostom as the main title of article, with Patriarch John I of Constantinople and John I of Constantinople as redirects."
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)#Saints: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion."

My proposed addition would go something like this: "Some popes are clearly most commonly known in English by some other name which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include Saint Peter, Clement of Rome, etc."(assuming others agree that "Clement of Rome" is his common name).

You'll notice we already have one rather significant example of common-name usage among popes - Saint Peter, not Pope Peter. What this proposal does is explicitly allow for other common names - which will usually be the name most people use to search for an article.

If people like and adopt this proposal, the only other change to the guideline would be in the Saints section, whose second-to-last sentence would read something like: "Popes who are also saints are given their commonname, with a redirect from the forms with "Saint" when their common name is their papal name." (changes in bold)

So, that's it. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposal, with no opinion given on whether Clement falls under it or not. The "Saint Peter" argument is fairly convincing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, certainly, guidelines shouldn't be a barrier to the use of common names as article titles.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Weak Oppose ... I think. Saint Peter's the only one I can think of who is more notable for non-papal activities than being pope. All other popes derive their chief notability from being pope. Current naming system works. Deacon of Pndapetzim(Talk) 16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Clement receives his chief notability from being the author of First Clement; as such, he is called Clement of Rome.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see this as being about what makes a pope notable. I see it only as about what people call them. The vast majority should stay at Pope XXXX, I'm sure - but because the papal title will also be the common name, not because they were only notable as a pope (although the two are often closely related). It very well may be that Saint Peter and Clement of Rome (if that is indeed his common name) are the only exceptions (maybe Gregory the Great?). But explicitly allowing for usage of common names in papal article titles would bring this guidance into line with other biographical article titling guidance, which I see as only beneficial. Dohn joe (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, Clement is Clement I to me perhaps because of my ignorance of early church and canon history. As a result of the latter he's just a pope to me. I'm not committed on this issue, but my general feeling is that there is some (if not much) benefit with standardized names and, popes being so uniquely classified in our culture, of the present opinion that using the same form for all is preferable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I completely agree that having a standard or convention is very important - that way we know what to choose among Pope Paul II, Paul II (pope) and Pope Paul the Second. I just don't think that an inflexible rule benefits the readers. I don't know how you feel aboutWP:COGNOMEN, but I see this as an analogous situation - and even if there are very few popes with a common name outside the convention, allowing those few to be at their common names is good, in my opinion. What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I would also accept another sentence making clear that this is not intended to provoke a John Paul II/Pope John Paul IIdiscussion, which would be silly. Like the corresponding sentence on WP:NCROY (which permits Charlemagne or William the Conqueror), this should be about the use of cognomens, which don't need Pope (as we don't have King William the Conqueror.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  Proposed wording: Some early popes are better known to a wide range of readers by an epithet or cognomen than by name and number; when this is so, Wikipedia should title the article by the well-known name. Whether Pope Gregory I or Gregory the Great is to be used should be decided by consensus, after consultation of a variety of reliable English sources. This is chiefly to avoid committing this page to any examples, since all three of them are at least controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems good.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're worried about examples, why include one? Why not just say Which name to use should be decided by consensus...? And in any event, I'm in favor of including examples; most guidelines here do so. And if one of the cited examples gets moved, then another example can be used in its stead; this has also been known to happen around here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to make clear what sort of names are meant; while (please note) not endorsing either side in that discussion. I fear that without any example, someone will be arguing that Pope Benedict XVI is less common than Benedict XVI (as it must be, any hit for the first is also a hit for the second), and so it should move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea of limiting it to early popes would solve this problem in a better manner than including a sentence about Pope Gregory I. I think that including a specific example, which is contentious, into the policy page does not help matters. carl bunderson(talk) (contributions) 15:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whatever about the names that other sources give to popes, there are obvious advantages in having, within Wikipedia, a uniform style for the titles of articles on the popes. It would be unhelpful to have nearly all the Wikipedia articles on popes titled "Pope Name Number", but odd ones here and there given some other titles lacking all uniformity. There is a similar clear advantage in uniformity of style for the titles of articles on "Antipope Name Number". The discussion, referred to above, on the proposal to change the title of the article on Pope Clement I is producing a majority against changing it. (The article on Saint Peter is irrelevant, since if popes are seen assuccessors of Saint Peter, as they are, Saint Peter himself was not, in that sense, a pope, giving good grounds for not including that article in the series.) Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Of course there are advantages to having the uniform style. But are there any advantages to papal article uniformity that don't also apply to articles about patriarchs or European monarchs? Because the guidelines for those articles allow for exceptions to the formula when there is a much more common name. It has been recognized there that rigidly applying formulas is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Why should pope articles be treated differently? Dohn joe (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Because, unlike "William the Conqueror" and "Charlemagne", for whom these names are far more familiar to everyone than "William I of England" or "William II of Normandy" and "Charles I of Whatever", there are no Popes who for the general public are decidedly better known ("much more common name") by some name other than "Pope Name Number". Esoglou (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is at least one: Pope Peter I (trad. d. 64) is decidedly better known as Saint Peter. Two others are possible (Clement of Rome and Gregory the Great); there is a stalled move request until the convention is clarified. Now it may be that all three of them will stay at Name Number under this convention; but that's no reason not to have the convention right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I already indicated that Saint Peter is an obvious exception and need not be included in the series of "the successors of Saint Peter". As for "Clement of Rome", a name that is obviously commonly used by writers on patristics, I do not think that for the general public this is , to quote Dohn joe, a much more common name. The same holds for Gregory the Great - and for John Paul the Great! Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  First, I have to say it's rather tortured logic to hold that Saint Peter was not a pope. The first in a line is still part of that line. In the U.S., all presidents are successors to George Washington. Does that mean that he was not really a president himself?

  That aside, if you're right about the rest of them - and you may well be - then changing the language here would be harmless. But at least the language would be in line with other biographical guidelines. Doesn't that seem like a good thing? Dohn joe (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  And changing the language here will enfourage having exactly that discussion at the two or three talk-pages where it matters.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  The US President is not defined as the successor of George Washington. The Pope is defined as the successor of Saint Peter. Do you really need to be shown examples of authoritative RCC declarations that refer to the bishops (as a body) as the successors of the college of tha apostles, and the pope as the successor of Saint Peter? As Septentrionalis says, changing the language would stir up unnecessary conflicts. It would be like a mother telling her children not to shove bean up their noses while she was away. No, not a good thing. Esoglou(talk) 19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree with your definition of "pope". I always thought the definition was "bishop of Rome". And at the moment at least, Wikipediaseems to agree with me. The first paragraph of Saint Peter concludes that he "is regarded as the first Pope by the Roman Catholic Church". This statement is repeated in the body of the article. St. Peter is number one in the List of popes.

  Also, I'm fairly sure that you were misreading Septentrionalis's comment, as he is in favor of the language change. There are only a few articles that might be affected by this change. And if you're correct that "Pope Name Number" is the common name for all of them, then there's nothing to stir up, even if the moves were requested. So I'll ask again - doesn't putting the language of this guideline in line with other guidelines seem like a good idea? Dohn joe (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think that, at this stage, we are perhaps going around in circles and it's time to stop. Septentrionalis seems to be againstchanging the language, so as not to encourage unnecessary discussions. Whether that is his idea or not, it is mine. The Pope article says, inter alia, that "Catholics recognize the Pope as a successor to Saint Peter". The old Catholic Encyclopedia said: "The titlepope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth." Some of the declarations of the Second Vatican Council are quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880-884: "Just as by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." "There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor." Many more could be added. Good night. Esoglou (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly support changing the language here; I also support doing so in a way that will affect only a few of the articles on Popes. How this has been read as opposing a change is beyond me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Septentrionalis, I should have understood that you do favour encouraging discussions about the titles of some articles, though only of a few. You had earlier said quite clearly that you supported the proposed change. Esoglou (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess if there are only a handful of popes involved, we should have a discussion of each one purely on its merits (i.e. discounting any arguments from authority which would use this guideline as an authority), and see what results. Then we can simply reword the guideline if necessary to describe the consensus (or possibly lack of it).--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there is a current discussion on one of them, and one editor has declared he will support if and only if this guideline is changed. That produces an explicitly circular situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if that one editor did change his mind, there would still be more or less a tie in that discussion, not consensus for change. Esoglou (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to let that play out; we've expressed our opinions. But deliberately constructing a log-jam in which the article can't move until the guideline changes, and the guideline can't change until the article moves is just wrong.

Let's set a reasonable guideline - and if there is no consensus that Clement meets it, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I do think a clause about early popes would be good, so as to avoid Pope John Paul II/John Paul the Great issues. Having a rigid, Kantian naming convention is not helpful, as the history of Pope Clement I shows. We should be able to move articles when there is consensus about their subject's common name. FWIW, I do not find the Saint Peter argument convincing, as even though we consider him to have been pope, not even Catholics call him "Pope Peter". carl bunderson (talk)(contributions) 14:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, it's been over a week since the last comment. Do we have consensus to implement new language? Who wants to give it a go?Dohn joe (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? Scarcely. For what? The proposed text, "Some popes are clearly most commonly known in English by some other name which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include Saint Peter, Clement of Rome, etc." is certainly contentious. It is not verifiably true that "some popes are clearly most commonly known in English by some name (other thanPope Name Number) which identifies them unambiguously". The most unambiguous way of identifying them is undoubtedly as Pope Name Number. Of the merely two examples given (followed by the weasel "etc."), that of Saint Peter has been shown, after discussion, to be highly questionable and was cast aside even by an editor who favours making some change. (The apostles can be called bishops only analogously: the office of bishop is not identical with that of apostle.) Clement is commonly called Clement of Rome in writings about the Church Fathers, but for the ordinary reader "Pope Clement I" is far more illuminating an identification than "Clement of Rome". Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My reading of this discussion shows five editors in favor of a change to the guideline, one editor opposed, and one editor weakly opposed. That seems like fairly strong consensus as far as these discussions go. As for the content of the change, I would suggest using PMAnderson's proposed language, without the specific reference to Pope Gregory: Some early popes are better known to a wide range of readers by an epithet or cognomen than by name and number; when this is so, Wikipedia should title the article by the well-known name. Which name is to be used should be decided by consensus, after consultation of a variety of reliable English sources. Does that seem about right? Dohn joe (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what is your concrete proposal, which I have taken the liberty of bolding. I find it better than the first formulation, but I still oppose it. The "wide range of readers" will be those interested in fields such as patristics. For the general reader, even early popes are more clearly identified by name and number, and redirects will automatically send the more learned to the general readers' page. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, support it (possibly with "Wikipedia may" instead of "Wikipedia should"). I'm sure "a wide range of readers" will be taken to mean the general reader, not a specialized group or groups.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support -- The norm should be that articles are in standard form. Ther will be some exceptions, but if we have the article atGregory the Great, Pope Gregory I should be retained as a redirect to it. As long as that practice is followed, it does not matter unduly at whcihn of these the article is located. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is very little opposition to the proposal and, while I am still of the same opinion as before, I don't want to be pig-headed. Accordingly, provided that Kotniski's amendment ("Wikipedia may" instead of "Wikipedia should") is accepted, I withdraw my opposition. Esoglou (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The changes have been implemented. Dohn joe (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Saint Peter is fine and preferable. This is the first I've hear of "Clement of Rome" which redirects, BTW, to Pope Clement I."Student7 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is an example of how, for someone not "into" patristics, i.e., for the ordinary reader, "Pope Clement I" is a far more illuminating title than "Clement of Rome". Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Buildings named after saints

What about buildings named after other clergy? Like Br. Andrew Gonzalez Hall. Should it contain a period (.) after "Br"? Moray An Par (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Archbishops

I have been bold and made a clarification on the use of {archbishop} as a paranthetical dab. My argument for this is as follows:

from a recent discussion: "we disambiguate bishops first using "(bishop)" and then, if there are several bishops of the same name, according to (archi)episcopal title "(bishop of Cork and Ossory)" or "(archbishop of Canterbury)". The reason I have purged "(archbishop)" is because all archbishops are bishops – "archbishop" is only a title to be held while in that see (i.e. these people revert to bishop upon retirement or otherwise vacating the see), whereas "bishop" is the ecclesiastical order to which all of these (arch)bishops belong in perpetuity."

DBD 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is only for dab purposes. Smith (archbishop) can be more easily discerned from Smith (bishop). Yes, both are still bishops but we can now uniquely distinguish one from the other in the article. It's not meant as a final religious assignment. It could well be "Smith (York)" and "Smith (New York)". All we are trying to do is distinguish them so no one refers to or updates the wrong article. Anything unique will do. I think archbishop (like Pope, who is also a bishop) should be allowed. Student7 (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong views on this, but if a sperson never held a an ordinary diocesan see, but was promoted straight to archbishop, I would have thought it was appropriate to use "archbishop". In other areas, such as peerage, we nomrallyu have articles at the highest rank held. On the other hand, admirals seem often to be deabbed as "naval officer". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your second point is excellent. Not trying to assign a title here, but merely trying to distinguish between "Nelson (naval officer)" and "Nelson (musician)". (In the first though, he is still a bishop. The "arch" is on top of the other, but it's not really important).Student7 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a point: Roman Catholic archbishops, unlike Anglican archbishops, remain archbishops on retirement. Proteus(Talk) 18:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have to be so pedantic when disambiguating someone such as Joe Bloggs (bishop) even though they held the title Archbishop of Somewhere and generally referred to as Archbishop Bloggs. If someone is known as an archbishop then they should disambiguated as such, i.e. Joe Bloggs (archbishop). -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, an archbishop is a job and not an order (deacon, priest, bishop). The Catholic Church has three orders of cardinals: i.e. Cardinal bishop, Cardinal priest, and Cardinal deacon. So to disambiguate "Cardinal Joe Bloggs" with other Joe Bloggs he should be "Joe Bloggs (cardinal)". However, he is being disambiguated as "Joe Bloggs (bishop)" even though he is in one of the three orders of cardinals. If someone has been elevated as a cardinal then they should be disambiguated as such. There needs to be a consensus on disambigating cardinals, archbishops and bishops. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We disambiguate brevet generals all the time as "general" (if needed) or "soldier", if not. The brevet implies "temporary." So if "archbishop" is needed, why not use it even though temporary for some individuals? No reason that highest rank can't be used IMO. But there's no reason to be upset over it either, usually. A "Snodgrass Mericoff (cleric)" just as well suffices as "Snodgrass Mericoff {Cardinal-priest)", unless, Lord help us, there were two of them!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember, we are not assigning notability here. These people are already notable, supposedly. So it is not a prestige thing. A "George Washington (Virginian)" should serve just as well as a "George Washington (president)" if a dab were needed. Student7(talk) 21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Pope Peter

Should this redirect to Saint Peter as at present? Or should it be a dab page? There are various Popes Peter of Alexandria, as well as an article titled Pope Peter II.--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of objections, I've changed it to a dab page.--Kotniski (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mar

"Mar" is a title used in the Syrian tradition (both Oriental Orthodox and Catholic) for bishops and archbishops, it is not part of the ecclesiastic's name. The article Mar states, citing reliable sources, that "Mar" is a title "placed before the Christian name". The Wikipedia rule for Western bishops and archbishops is "For bishops and archbishops in the Western world, do not use their episcopal or archiepiscopal title in the article name unless necessary for disambiguation". ForEastern Orthodox archbishops and bishops "the form {name} of {place} is often used, as with Anthony of Sourozh and Gabriel of Comane. In other cases name and surname are used, as inKallistos Ware." For Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic bishops and archbishops, a similar practice should surely be followed. This concerns many articles, such as Mar Augustine Kandathil. Esoglou (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no comment has been made, I have made bold to insert in the project page an indication in line with the general rule of WP:NCP#Titles and styles. Esoglou (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been "troublesome" at times. Doesn't hurt to be explicit. I'm assuming the prefix "H.H." is covered elsewhere. Haven't seen it in titles. Student7 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bishops of St. Thomas Christians

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), tells that it does not include ‘’the naming convention of ancient historical church clergy at the higher level.’’ One such church is that of Saint Thomas Christians. Because it is not included in this article, an editor has changed the names of so many St. Thomas Christians clergy at the higher level. These changes made the titles ridiculus. So I am adding a new section - Bishops of St. Thomas Christians - to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). Neduvelilmathew (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed what was said about this in the article, since I think its insertion was due to a misunderstanding. The insertion was about styles of address of this branch of Syriac Christians to be used in ordinary life, while the article is about the forms to be used in Wikipedia articles, especially in the titles of the articles. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Malankara Metropolitan's after the arrival of the Portuguese, were best known as Marthoma I, Marthoma II etc, without the differentiation 'Mar' and 'Thoma', which is in a way similar to Mother Theresa. Changing these names as per wiki rules, to Thoma I, Thoma II, would lead to confusion ( as they are never heard of in that form) as well do hamper the 'search' possibilities. This was the concern ofNeduvelilmathew, which I too share. Credit Risk (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Syriac bishops

Some Syriac (head) bishops, such as Mar Dinkha IV, are the Patriarch of the Church of the East. So I think such case should follow#Patriarchs rather than #Syriac bishops, as we don't apply #Western bishops and archbishops to those popes. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear though regarding not using "Mar" in Syriac names whether bishops or Patriarchs. Mar is very similar to "His Holiness" for example. "Mar" means holy / saint and not part of a name. In Armenian Catholicoi patriarchs, we are using just first names: E.g. Aram I,Vazgen I, Karekin I, Karekin II. Similarly then, what we have here as Mar Dinkha IV (actually Mar Dinkha IV Khanania) would be just Dinkha IV rather than Mar Dinkha IV. The basis is that Mar should be excluded regardless if we keep the family name or just stick to first nameswerldwayd (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mar or Mor may be omitted, but the case here is similar to Maran, Moran, or Moran Mor, etc. used on Patriarchs (e.g. Moran Mor Baselios Cleemis) is not simply a "His Holiness". Anyway, whether there is a "Mar" is not important, there must be some title indicate he is a Patriarch. So I think follow #Patriarchs, his name should be Patriarch Dinkha IV or Mar Patriarch Dinkha IV. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mar Thoma

Connected with the last two threads, we need to sort out the names for the articles Mar Thoma I, etc. Please see that article's talk page. It is asserted that omitting the "Mar" leads to forms that are never actually used, and that must be wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems that indeed the "Mar" is required here; the articles have been moved, and I've updated the guideline accordingly.--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass moving of articles on Syriac bishops

I notice that User:Karnan has moved a whole series of articles to make them begin with "Mar". See his recent contributions. One of the articles he has moved is the very example given here of an article that should not begin with "Mar": see WP:Naming conventions (clergy)#Syriac bishops. Should his edits be reverted, at least until a change will perhaps be made in the naming conventions guidelines? Esoglou (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought so (he seems to be using the "Mar Thoma n" case as a precedent, although the same considerations don't apply in his other cases as did there).--Kotniski (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. They should all be reverted. Few if any of them are for people with common names in the sense that "Thoma n" is a common name. The discussion at Talk:Mar_Thoma_I that he claims as a precedent does not apply. Instead, the names are two-word, first+last names that are probably no less common than the names of high officials in other denominations, whose WP pages are not adorned with titles. See, for example, names for American Roman Catholic Cardinals HERE (see also my justificationhere, for reverting one of User:Karnan's moves per WP:BRD). So I say let all of his moves be reverted now. Whether or not he or someone else wants to start a discussion about changing the naming convention, let such a discussion happen later, after the dust has cleared. -- Presearch (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done as agreed by the editors who have intervened here. User:Karnan was informed of the discussion, but did not intervene. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Esoglou,

Sorry to bring to your notice that Mar Thoma I, Mar Thoma II and others are not Syriac bishops. They are not Syrians, they are Indians. They are not Syriac Christians.There is no “concrete historical evidence” to show that they were under Syrian rule at any time. They are Mar Thoma Nazranis whom you call saint Thomas Christians. I don’t think Wikipedia is authorised to change the names of common people or bishops of other churches, religions or countries. Please think twice if you are going to change and call them “Thoma”.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

By "Syriac" I don't mean "Syrian". I mean "Syriac" in the sense in which the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church and similar churches mean it, in other words, the different churches of Syriac Christianity, whose liturgical language is Syriac language, the language that gave the word "Mar". The members of these churches don't have to be either Syrian or Indian, just as the members of the Latin Church don't have to be of Latin nationality. Can you perhaps suggest another word to use for the form of Christianity that uses "Mar" as a title for its bishops? If you can, Wikipedia might consider using that word instead of "Syriac". Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mar" generally should not be used in titles or as an honorific. An allowance might be made for very early leaders, near-mythic, which seemed to encorporate "Mar" with "Thoma" as in "Marthoma." A bit more "traditional" perhaps? But definitely not allowed for anyone from maybe 1600 on (an arbitrary selection). And probably not for anyone not named "Thoma."

I agree with Esoglou's definition of "Syriac." There are "Eastern Syriac" and "Western Syriac" but they are all nevertheless Indians, for purpose of this discussion. Student7 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinions on the names of St. Thomas Christian bishops in particular and Indian religious figures in general have been articulatedhere already. I dissent with the judgement arrived at there, and also with the classification of the bishops as Syrian/Syriac (They follow the St. Thomas Christian tradition, which has had some inputs in the past from Syrian/Syriac, but remain distinct; some of them may have had connexions of various degrees with Chaldean Catholic/Antiochene Oriental Orthodox/Assyrian/Latin/Anglican/Protestant traditions, but that is not their overriding nature; their nature is St. Thomas Christian and Indian).

The paragraphs are repeated here.

Varkey becomes Mar Varkey when Varkey Vithayathil becomes a bishop. Writing Mar Varkey Vithayathil (writing the correct first name) is not the same as writing Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil (prefixing a title).

Mar is a kind of title different from Bishop and President; it is different from Father and Sister in that it is never used with the surname; the former two can be used with surname (or informally with the first name, when the first name suffices for identification). It is also different from Pope, which is a title, yet prefixed to a (newly adopted) first name, and where the surname is not used. Note that the wikipaedia articles on popes add the title Pope in the respective article names (the convention for patriarchs Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)#Patriarchs too may be noted here). (Sir is also a title, which is prefixed to the first name, even though there is a surname. But knights do not bear the title as a denotation of their committed vocations, at least in modern times. Dom is similar, and is not exclusively used for consecrated bishops.)

Mar, in contrast, becomes part of the first name in a stronger sense than all these cases, and denotes commitment to a vocation rather than an office. If popes can have their titles prefixed to their article names, so can bishops in the Syriac naming system. It is also the practice in the Indian system across religions and churches, e.g., Mar Thoma I, Punnathara Mar Dionysious (Mar Thoma XI), Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious II, Geevarghese Mar Dionysius of Vattasseril, Gheevarghese Mar Gregorios of Parumala, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo, Narayana Guru (a suffix), Maulana Mohammad Ali, etc. Note that whether the surname is present or not is not a factor in the practice of Mar becoming part of the first name. Neither is it relevant whether the first name (with the Mar) appears in the leading or trailing position in the full common name. In all cases, whether for `ancient' or `modern' figures, the Mar is an essential part of the name.

Mar is a kind of title which is very strongly attached to the first name as part of a vocation. (Informally it is best to think of it as becoming part of the first name, but that is not completely precise.) There are not much examples in Western contexts except for Sir and classical knighthood (not the modern version where a sense of vocation is lost) and Dom.

There is no official dissertation that I know of on the naming conventions of religious figures (or, for that matter, people with a committed vocation) in a traditional Indian (or Eastern) context. In circles where these matter, the fact is trivial. Evidence can only be presented by examples. One would be hard pressed to find a single scholarly reference to many of the names quoted above without the titles. The practice of using the common name should settle the issue (and override the practice of avoiding the usual kind of titles like Professor, Doctor, etc.).

Indian religious naming conventions are of pivotal value for bishops of the Indian churches of St. Thomas, irrespective of whether they have traces of external influences including adherence to foreign inspired liturgies (which do not subsume the individuality of the Indian churches). The bishops of today use Mar not because that is the practice of Syrian/Syriac churches, but because, historically, the Indian churches chose to adopt such nomenclature, assimilated it as an Indian church practice (which resembles Indian religious practice in general), and continue it today. Some other elements of the Syrian/Syriac churches were rejected, and some other influences, both Indian and external, adopted, forming the Indian churches of the present day.

Karnan (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User Karnan is attempting again to engage in a mass move. It is totally inappropriate for him to defy consensus in this manner. I have returned a couple of the pages to their consensus-based names, without "Mar". Hopefully others can pitch in, too. Karnan must be made to understand that defiance of consensus in this way is inappropriate. -- Presearch (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly understand that no one replied to the explanation I had posted here. The prior posts do not indicate any sort of conensus against the explanation. You may wish to revert the moves, but after due discussion and refutation of the arguments. Karnan (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The examples you gave of "Sir" and "Dom", which are attached to the first name of persons but which are not included in the title of Wikipedia articles about the persons, is sufficient refutation of your arguments about Wikipedia practice, which does not have to be the same as that in other contexts. It is clear that you have not won consensus and, while a move of some article for which you could produce reasons specific that article could perhaps be defended, a mass moving without consensus cannot. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Cardinal dab phrase

What is the correct dab phrase for cardinals? Most, but not all, cardinals have been consecrated as a bishop. A bishop is an order (as is a deacon or a priest). An archbishop, as we are told, is a not an order but a job title, and so is not to be used as a dab phrase. But what about cardinals? They have three orders, cardinal bishop, cardinal priest, and cardinal deacon. They are princes of the churchand they are always treated in protocol as equivalents of royal princes. Royal princes on Wikipedia are rarely, if at all, have the dab phase (prince). It is "Prince Whoever of Wherever" or "Prince Whoever, Duke/Earl/etc of Wherever". Cardinals on the overhand go by their forename and surname on Wikipedia, and to distinguish them from someone else of the same name and surname they currently have the dab phase (bishop) not (cardinal). So surely by protocol they should have the dab phrase (cardinal) since they are equivalent to royal princes and have a higher status than an ordinary (arch)bishop? Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My instinct would be to dab John Cardinal Smith, Archbishop of London from John Smith, Archbishop of London as John Smith (Cardinal Archbishop of London) and John Smith (Archbishop of London), with a hatnote on the latter. DBD 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps whatever cases with "bishop" Scrivener has in mind are instances of people who were thus distinguished in Wikipedia before becoming cardinals. If that is so, "bishop" is still a valid way of distinguishing them from any that share the same name(s) - they are still bishops. Before the twentieth century, there were cardinals who not only were not bishops but were not even priests or deacons. Today, the few cardinals who are not also bishops could, I think, all be distinguished also by the word "theologian". But I see no reason why "cardinal" could not be used, both for the historical cardinals whether bishops or perhaps not even deacons, and also for today's cardinals, whether bishops or not bishops. If occupations can be used, cannot ranks also? Indeed why should "archbishop" not be used when appropriate? That too is a rank. I suppose that for non-episcopal Christians and those who do not believe in any form of holy orders "bishop" too is merely a rank.

I see no need for such complicated phrases as "John Cardinal Smith, Archbishop of London" - even apart from the fact that such a usage would stir up disputes about whether it should instead be "Cardinal John Smith, Archbishop of London". The single word "cardinal" in parenthesis after the man's name should be enough. Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCWC–Cardinals guideline does not give a dab phrase to distiguish them from others with the same name. I'd like a consensus dab phrase for cardinals. Complicated dab phrases, such as John Smith (Cardinal Archbishop of London), are unneccessary. A basic John Smith (cardinal) is sufficient. So far the consensus leans towards the basic (cardinal) dab phrase.Scrivener-uki (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4