Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Chicbyaccident in topic WP:BISHOP revision
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pope title in article names

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Current Francis I is the Pope and King of Vatican City as well as the seated executive (CEO) of Holy See (a legal corporate person). Currently only one of these titles are mentioned in the article name. C.G.P. Grey explains the Pope with fascinating detail.

If "Pope" is a title rather than a commonly used first name it has no business being in the article name. Curently Queen Elizabeth II, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Emperor Akihito (It is exceptionally rude in Japanese culture to refer anyone by first name, unthinkable to refer the Emperor without the appropriate honorifics & titles), Abdullah (of Saudi Arabia) bin Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman bin Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Saud1, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah1, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said1, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani1, King Mswati III1 or even Jesus does not have a title in their article.

Currently John Paul II is a redirect to Pope John Paul II and it should be the other way around per the custom seen elsewhere on the site as existing policy and customs suggest. Pope Francis should be moved and redirected to Francis (Pope) or Francis I. Francis I looks better IMHO as the title doesn't clutter the article name.

1: Absolute Monarchies.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue was recently discussed several times in detail (see above) and was closed per consensus. The administrator who closed the last discussion wrote in summary: "Consensus is against changing the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." Bede735 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not find the above discussion satisfactory. I have actually read it before posting this. The actual issue wasn't addressed. A naming convention for popes has not been established as far as I know. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The naming convention for popes has been established and provided in the guidance WP:NCCL. It states:
For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. For popes who are also saints, see Saints below. ...
This convention has been in place for years. The proposal was to change this convention by applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes—that was the actual issue—and this proposal was rejected by concensus. Bede735 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not remember a pope discussion that established the consensus you mentioned. All I see in archives is people disliking the pope title in article names and some support to that end. This isn't something that there had ever been an established convention in the past nor has it been established above. Current structure is not line with WP:NPOV and there is always room for more discussion. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Francis I would be wrong. Current pope doesn't have a roman numeral associated with his name. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
These exact issues were all discussed in great detail above in two threads (they're not in the archive) with the discussion closed with this closure summary: "Consensus is against changing the the naming convention for articles about Roman Catholic popes, and also specifically against applying the naming conventions for European sovereigns to Popes." DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This does not apply to vast majority of popes. If the problem is disambiguation, there are ways around that used on the rest of the site. I do not know what you mean by "European sovereigns" but we avoid any kind of title in article names of people on the rest of the wiki as I have demonstrated with a few examples. Wikipedia does not abide by religious rules regardless of the religion and roman catholic popes are no more important than leaders of other religions/countries. Akihito is the current Japanese Emperor vast majority of other names I have mentioned is middle eastern hence not European. I do not see a sufficient reason for us to have a double standard on this matter. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Insisting that we need to use some Wikipedia-contrived designation for disambiguation instead of following real-world usage has a distinct air of Wikipedia:Right great wrongs masquerading as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see no compelling reason to change existing usage. Choess (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia NOT Pope-pedia. There is a reason why we have general guidelines. Exceptions to the general guidelines should have a good reason not the other way around. This is the only instance of a general exception to site-wide guidelines on people tiles. I do not see the relevance of "Wikipedia:Right great wrongs" to this situation. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not surprised; if you were sufficiently disinterested to understand its applicability, or sufficiently well-informed to base your positions on reliable sources rather than some video that struck your fancy on YouTube, you wouldn't be doing it. Anyway, you're proposing to break WP:COMMONNAME (in the real world, which we're supposed to be documenting, people distinguish Popes from other people of the same name and number by calling them "Pope so-and-so") and the "consistency" criterion for article naming to uphold a principle that isn't actually true. (Our entire suite of articles on the British peerage uses "title[s] in article names of people", for instance.) That's never going to get consensus, which is why the responses to your lengthy arguments have been short and relatively flip. Find an article to write, or go to an Orange Order meeting if you prefer to rant about Popes. Choess (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to MOS:SAINTS

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

It's evident from recent RMs at Talk:Saint Joseph, Talk:Saint Timothy, Talk:Saint Peter that the current guideline does not have the support of editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify: I had a quick look at the linked discussions and I couldn't see opposition to MOS:SAINTS - I may have missed it though. Please point out specifically where it is. What I see was a lot of argument about whether a particular Saint is known as "St. X" or not. Isn't that just applying the guideline, not disagreeing with it? DeCausa (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There were at least 2 comments saying "then MOS:SAINTS is wrong" "MOS:SAINTS needs to be changed" and saying that "WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over MOS:SAINTS" with discussion spread over 3 RMs I make approximate quotes because it's a bit difficult, but just going down the first RM I immediately meet 2:

I'm sorry but this does not appear to be the case. Google Books is not a reliable reference, and counting google hits is no way to do research. Stripping "saint" from the title name gives us Joseph, which is already taken, so MOS:SAINTS supports Saint Joseph. Rwflammang (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Cf. also Saint David, Saint Anne, and Saint Christopher which include the title for the same reason. Rwflammang (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the guideline supports "saint" only when the individual is only recognizable when it's included, i.e. Saint Patrick. That's obviously not the case here since most reliable sources, as well as most Bibles, do not include it. --JFH (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nor does the section mention WP:COMMONNAME at all. MOS:SAINTS is a sentence or two tucked away in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and it is questionable whether it applies to non-clerical saints at all. In any case neither over-ride WP:COMMONNAME, and many exceptions to both have stood the test of time. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Similar in the other RMs. e.g. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should be changed to clarify the scope and meaning, and its relationship to WP:COMMONNAME. Also whether and how it applies when disambiguation is needed and "Saint Foo" seems to be the most appropriate alternative. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a change

Tell me how you like this, In ictu oculi, Johnbod, DeCausa, etc.? [1] User:Red Slash (User talk:Red Slash) - 6 December 2013

Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint". Another, more controversial exception, may occur when the base name (for example, "Timothy") requires disambiguation due to lack of primary topic for the saint. In that case, natural disambiguation has been preferred at Wikipedia, which sometimes but certainly not always involves the title "Saint". For example, we use Ulrich of Augsburg (perfectly unambiguous) but Saint Patrick (see Patrick, a disambiguation page). Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint". (See also List of saints.)

I'm not sure this change relates to the central issue which is opposition to the basic MOS "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint"." The New Testament figures Peter, Joseph, Timothy are evidently not "only recognisable through the inclusion of the word "Saint" " since they are not called "Saint" either in the NT or in 80% of Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with In ictu oculi. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I do as well. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not typical guideline format maybe, but certainly an improvement. The idea that this page over-rides WP:COMMONNAME, which it doesn't, should also be addressed. Naturally I reject Iio's description of the issues. As he himself has complained above, his interpretation of this page has been consistently rejected by consensus in recent move debates he and others have started to remove "Saint", and it is better that the policy is clarified. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure who "lio" is in Johnbod's comment above, but I've been a party of several name change discussions and the suggested name change was not rejected due to concensus - the name change was rejected due to a LACK of concensus. This is a notable difference as John's statement implies that the attempts were shouted down. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod that the policy needs clarification. Ckruschke (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's In ictu oculi. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A saint is only someone who has been declared to be a saint by one or more churches; it is a neutral fact that this is so. That is not biased against atheists etc, to whom the concept is merely meaningless except as part of the person's "reception hisory", which with figures like Joseph is almost all we know about them anyway. Joseph is only notable as a Christian, and the issue we are discussing arises only when other forms of disambiguation don't work. We are not talking about changing Thomas More here. Though other religions sometimes use the concept of "saint", in English "Saint Foo" is only a Christian formulation, so disambiguating by "(Christian saint)" is overkill. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"Saint Peter" and "Saint Joseph" are unambiguous and neutral expressions. Even atheists tell non-malicious jokes about "Saint Peter" as doorkeeper to heaven. Use of the term "Saint Peter" implies neither belief nor unbelief. Calling Saint Joseph "Joseph (Christian saint)" (an expression that fits Joseph of Cupertino much better) or even "Joseph of Nazareth" would not be common speech, and for that reason use of such terms would have non-neutral POV overtones unlike use of the common established "Saint Joseph". Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with both John and Esoglou. You'd actually be INSERTING POV by using the naming convention Peter (christian saint). Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's clear reviewing Category:Christian_saints_by_denomination that only a very few such articles have used the "Saint" or "Pope" in the title, and indeed many of those could have done without, such as Paul VI, which presently is simply a redirect to Pope Paul VI, itself a rather blatant hagiography in need of revision. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BISHOP revision

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

I propose revising naming conventions for bishops and archbishops:

Preparatory reading

Considerations

  • Consistency
  • Recognisability
  • Official names
  • Common names
  • Ambiguity
  • NPOV

Involved parties

Comments

Proposals

  • Proposal 0: the status quo
  1. (Implied: Use "Common Name" {per WP:COMMONNAME.})
  2. If ambiguous, use paranthetical dab phrase "Common Name (bishop)". ("bishop" in the sense of the order and therefore including archbishops.)
  3. If two or more (arch)bishops have the same common name, dab by current or most recent (or, in practice, most senior) see "Common Name (archbishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (bishop of Otherwhere)." (Customarily and incorrectly uncapitalised.)
  4. If two or more bishops of the same common name held the same most recent or most senior see, then "Common Name (died 1066)".
  5. Bishops of only one name must not be dab'd with only (bishop); if two one-named bishops of the same see are generally distinguished by Roman numerals, they should be dab'd by such.
  • Proposal 1:
  1. Use "Common Name" (per WP:COMMONNAME.)
  2. If ambiguous, use paranthetical dab phrase "Common Name (bishop)". ("bishop" in the sense of the order and therefore including archbishops.)
  3. If two or more (arch)bishops have the same common name, dab by current, most recent or most senior see "Common Name (Archbishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (Bishop of Otherwhere)." (Properly capitalised as episcopal titles; avoiding use of disambiguation by denomination since sees are better recognised.) DBD 16:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. If two or more bishops of the same common name held the same most recent or most senior see, then "Common Name (Bishop of Place, died 1066)", or (if no year is known for one of them) "Common Name (12th-century Bishop of Here)", or "Common Name II (Bishop of There)" (if both were active in the same century and not dab-able by years). DBD 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposal 1 examples

Discussion of proposals

I propose (proposal 1, point 3) that all episcopal titles be properly capitalised, since in that phrase we do not mean that this person was "a bishop, of Wherever", but that they hold/held the specific title "Bishop of Wherever. DBD 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see one potential drawback to this proposal, although it is also admittedly a problem present in the existing guidelines. There are, at least for the Catholic and Orthodox churches (the latter of whom should probably also be notified) some problems regarding really early bishoporics where more than one individual bishop of a diocese are known to history by the same name. I have seen in some reference books on saints entries such as "Foo I of Fooville" and "Foo II of Fooville" and whatever. How would these changes deal with such circumstances? John Carter (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added to my proposal to cover that eventuality. I have essentially formulated what seems already to happen in practice. DBD 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, some of those saints "Whoever II of Over There" would have that as their common name. DBD 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose making changes to Naming conventions (clergy) guidelines. I don't see any problem with Proposal 1, points 1 and 2 since they are the same with Proposal 0, but Proposal 1, point 3 is not a natural progression of points 1 and 2, and Proposal 1, point 4 has too many options. Although the current guidelines are not perfect they have remained in place for many years and should stay as they are. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal lacks one detail: how to cater for two bishops of the same name in the same diocese but from different denominations. Following the Reformation in Ireland, many dioceses had parallel successions - 1 for the RC Church and 1 for the Church of Ireland. It's possible therefore that over the centuries, two Irishmen occupied the same see but in different denominations. So we'd need "Common Name (Bishop of Here, Denomination Foo)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Or (Church of Ireland Bishop of There) and (Roman Catholic Bishop of There)? DBD 09:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Although I suppose there's the outside possibility that we'd end up with a (United Church of England and Ireland Bishop of There) which is becoming a bit ridiculous... DBD 09:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for complicated options to distinguish one bishop from another with the same name and title. The current guidelines simply has their death year in brackets: e.g. Alexander de Kininmund (died 1380) and Alexander de Kininmund (died 1344), both bishops of Aberdeen. It is very unlikely, if at all, with two bishops with the same title and death year. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Scrivener, I'd like to know what you mean by "point 3 is not a natural progression". That would help me prepare a Proposal 2. DBD 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I always thought the disambiguation phrase in parentheses should normally be in lowercase, unless it is a proper noun (like a book title) that would appear capitalized even in running text (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Format. The progression I see is (1) Common Name, (2) Common Name (bishop), (3) Common Name (bishop of Wherever) or Common Name (archbishop of Wherever). With number 3, I see them as a bishop/archbishop of Wherever, and not the Bishop/Archbishop of Wherever. We don't see people in the peerage with their title in parentheses: e.g. Thomas Howard (3rd Duke of Norfolk) but with their title after a comma e.g. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. So the progression with bishops is either Common Name (bishop of Wherever) / Common Name (archbishop of Wherever), or Common Name, Bishop of Wherever / Common Name, Archbishop of Wherever. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I would contend that Bishop of Somewhere should always appear capitalised in prose. DBD 11:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the names of articles are not examples of "prose" and they are not about someone holding a specific position ("Bishop of Somewhere") but about what and where they are or were. So the "of Somewhere" part of the article name is the disambiguation part. It is the same principle as disambiguation between two people with the same name and same work (especially in the same country), i.e. between Jesus (carpenter of Nazareth) and Jesus (carpenter of Jerusalem). Afterwriting (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So the "bishop of" is surplus to requirements? So we should rather distinguish Matthew Parker (York) from Matthew Parker (Canterbury). DBD 08:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging @Anglicanus, Bashereyre, Laurel Lodged, Scrivener-uki, and Tassedethe: in hopes we could get moving again. DBD 17:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC))

Why is it "Eanbald (died 796) and Eanbald (floruit 798)" and not "Eanbald (Archbishop of York, died 796) and Eanbald (Archbishop of York, floruit 798)"? Doesn't the former violate proposal 1.4 ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Support Proposal 1, especially the change from the form "Liutbert (archbishop of Mainz)" to the form "Lyfing (Archbishop of Canterbury)", because the title is a proper name that is usually capitalised. However, where just "archbishop" or "bishop" are used to disambiguate, it is right to use lower case because it's a generic noun, not a title. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Outcome

What about the seemingly exceptionate policy on naming of church buildings? When did that occur? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)/Archive_4&oldid=1213517790"