Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

RfC on dropping preemptive disambiguation

Should we drop the prefix "Roman Catholic" (or "Catholic") from the diocese and archdiocese pages where no disambiguation is needed? 11:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, because unnecessary disambiguation is contrary to WP:CONSISTENT and of no help to anyone. In a vast majority of cases, the Catholic diocese is the only diocese so named. We can also see Anglican dioceses without the denominational prefix in categories Dioceses of the Church of England, Church of Ireland dioceses, Dioceses of the Scottish Episcopal Church, etc. Dropping the unnecessary prefix also spares us the constant "Catholic" vs "Roman Catholic" discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Agree. It is mostly clear enough in most instances I’m aware of. But my only little gripe would be if there is a distinction between i.e. a Catholic of similar diocese that also leans Anglican, Orthodox or Protestant (or whatever branch of Christianity there be). IMO, that would need a brief clarification at the lead. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Agree: See my thoughts in a somewhat dated note on my user page. For cases requiring disambiguation, we should use a parenthetical. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Yes. If there is no disambiguation needed, because a page is already WP:PRECISE enough without it, then adding it just because it might not be in the future is unnecessary. Times where it is necessary can be handled on a case-by-case basis with a hatnote or disambiguator if needed. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Agree per the reasoning above; the term "Roman" is completely superfluous in most cases and may cause confusion as denoting the Latin Church (or the Roman Rite) rather than expressing a communion of churches (i.e., the Eastern Catholic Churches). We may consider drafting an essay or guidance piece to cite when removing superfluous "Roman" usage. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• No. AIUI the point here is that Anglican Diocese of Portsmouth and Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth are fine (Diocese of Portsmouth is a WP:DAB page listing both), but if one of them has a unique name, then the preferred article title should be "Diocese of", and good luck to you if you're looking at search results and don't know which denomination that is. For example, there is no Roman Catholic Diocese of Oxford, but there is an Anglican Diocese of Oxford. (The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham includes the city of Oxford.) According to this, the preferred article title might be "Diocese of Oxford" and "Archdiocese of Birmingham"? And we wish you lots of luck if you're in Birmingham and didn't know that the "Archdiocese" is the Catholic one and the ordinary Diocese of Birmingham is the Anglican one. I'm inclined to go the other way: Maybe we should require all of them to be WP:PRECISE enough that the title "unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects". Adding "Anglican" or "Roman Catholic" to the front "distinguishes it from other subjects" very effectively. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Archdiocese of Birmingham" already "unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects" because there is no other archdiocese of Birmingham besides the Roman Catholic one. That is WP:PRECISE. We already have short descriptions telling us which denomination any particular diocese is. As it stands now, when the reader types in "Archdiocese of Birmingham" (which is obviously what anyone familiar with it would type, rather than "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham") Wikipedia suggests an article titled "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham" with the short description "Catholic diocese in England". Obviously the page title should be what the reader types in and then the short description would be provide further information (rather than repeat information). Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• yes, per above. i see no reason for this extra clutter in article titles. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok, we have a six-to-one consensus in favor of this. Does anyone know how we should go about implementing this? There are two considerations: 1.) when disambiguation is necessary, should it be done by parenthetical and 2.) should it be phrased as "Latin Church", "Latin Catholic" (like the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions), or "Roman Catholic" (like now)? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that we start by moving articles with the unnecessary prefixes and then deal with cases where disambiguation is necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

RFC on merger between 'Misa de gallo' and 'Midnight mass'

Other than the Spanish name, there is no significant difference between Misa de Gallo and Midnight Mass. There is considerable overlap between both articles.

Please discuss the merger proposal in Talk:Midnight_Mass#Merger_Discussion. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

New article Theology of the Priesthood (Catholic Church)

Hi all,

I just created a new article that was in the list of recommendations. Theology of the Priesthood (Catholic Church).

Check it out and let me know what you think.

Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 23:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Its a very nice article by the way I fixed a red link for you. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 22:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Extra Eyes on Pope Francis Please

H.H. is currently hospitalized with a "complex polymicrobial infection." The Vatican has just announced that in addition to the aforementioned medical condition, he now has pneumonia in both lungs. Not trying to be alarmist, and it's entirely possible that this will blow over. That said, it never hurts to lean forward a bit. The page is indefinitely semi-protected but a few more editors adding it to their watchlist won't hurt. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

watchlisted. Hail Mary... ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It's been on mine but I'll make a point of showing the flag a bit. If the worst does come, a 1RR might be worth considering? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I would support that. Clearly a page that would warrant that if it came to be. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Except in subject areas specifically authorized either by ARBCOM or the community, editing restrictions and page protections are not imposed preemptively. So we can cross that bridge if/when necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

A just released medical bulletin reports the Pope's medical condition has taken a serious turn for the worse. [1] -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Catholicism Discord server

For greater collaboration: https://discord.gg/bAqTPgCBec ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Archbishops

Why do we use terminology like "Archbishop-elect", if they're not elected? Also, does the suffix mean, they've not yet assumed their position? Example Richard W. Smith, recently appointed Archbishop of Vancouver. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Election can refer both to being chosen by a large group of people or a singular person. Canon law uses this term; see canon 1014. It refers to someone who has been chosen to be a bishop but has not yet been ordained. -designate is commonly used for someone who is already a bishop and has been named to a different see but has not yet taken posession. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

So... Smith hasn't yet become Archbishop of Vancouver? GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Not until his official installation. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The term "elect" is used in circumstances even where there are no votes cast in an election (i.e. Order of Christian Initiation of Adults, where the catechumens are also known as the elect and participate in the Rite of Election, which welcomes those seeking to be baptized/confirmed into the Church at Easter without entailing an election). —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bloom6132:, I've sought more clarification here. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Discord Link

Hey everyone, looks like the Discord invite link is not working, can someone update it and/or send it to me? FarmerUpbeat (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. Updating. https://discord.gg/bAqTPgCBec ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro Application submitted! Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Vatican journalists

I have created drafts for two journalists who specialize in Vatican reporting: Andreas Englisch and Gerard O'Connell. They may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's good to know about these journalists.

I'm curious if there are AfC reviewers in this project. What are the pros and cons of being an AfC reviewer? I have submitted two drafts for review, so I was thinking of a "fairness" arrangement where I would review a couple of drafts in the AfC backlog for each of my drafts that are reviewed.  Spes  21:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article nomination for Classical theism

Hello, everyone! I have recently nominated the classical theism article for a "good article" title. I am currently looking for a person willing to perform a review. The article is very polished and should pass the review without any hurdles. Brent Silby (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Only "The Most Reverend" in infobox?

Quizical has been deleting prefixes such as "His Excellency" and "His Grace" from infoboxes of bishops/archbishops bios, asserting that these are "not used in info boxes". He also claims that this is "not just my preference", but cannot/will not cite anything in MOS:INFOBOX (or any other part of MOS) that supports his changes. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely appropriate to include them. They're an honorific prefix. Why wouldn't it be? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 10:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not appropriate. Not everything is or needs to be explicitly stated in any part of the MOS, there are style principles which also exist by an established custom which is a form of consensus. We don't overcomplicate info boxes and it's the established custom to only use the relevant "Reverend" clerical style as the "honorary prefix" in the info boxes for clergy and bishops who aren't also cardinals. Just because other honorary prefixes may sometimes be used within the church doesn't mean that we should also include them here. "His Reverence" also exists as an honorary prefix for clergy who aren't bishops, but we would never also include that in info boxes. Same principle applies for bishops except for those that are cardinals or popes as they are no longer normally styled as "The Most Reverend". You may also care to check out the articles about particular popes, such as Pope Francis, as you will notice that "His Holiness" is not used in the info boxes for them. Quizical (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at what's actually being argued about, I agree. "Most Reverend" is sufficient for bishops, adding "His Grace" or "His Excellency" before it in addition is unnecessary. At a glance I originally thought this was about including anything at all, which I see is not the case. I apologize for misreading.Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that it is unnecessary in the info box and it is also very definitely not the established custom. Consistency across articles is also a style principle. Many articles on bishops include "His Grace" etc in a separate "style box". That is where it belongs, not at the top of the info box. Quizical (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

"Not everything is or needs to be explicitly stated in any part of the MOS" – what a nice cop out to ignore WP policy/guidelines and consensus. Diffs please re. your nebulous concept of "established custom" or it didn't happen. And just to be clear – you scrubbing "His Excellency" and "His Grace" from multiple articles does not create an "established custom". —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to comment in an offensive manner that is your problem and won't achieve anything. There already is an established consensus in practice on this matter which you are ignoring due to your own personal preference. Quizical (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to take offence at comments where no offence was intended – be my guest. The fact that you had to remove "His Excellency"/"His Grace" from the infoboxes of four articles[2][3][4][5] demonstrate that your stylistic preference is far from "established consensus". For you to peddle such nonsense as established consensus is laughable at best. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

No offence may be intended, but your tone is very aggressive and confrontational. WP:AGF. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who made this pointed edit summary: "If you're concerned about personal preferences you should be concerned with your own rather than mine." It really puts the "personal" in no personal attacks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pudencio Andaya Jr.#Requested move 22 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pudencio Andaya Jr.#Requested move 22 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Roman Catholic bias in the articles on pre-Schism popes (and elsewhere)

Firstly, I would like to say that I have a bias towards Eastern Orthodoxy (even if I currently do not believe in it) which is my primary motivation for bringing this to attention.

I've noticed whilst hopping from wikilink to wikilink of the popes in chronological order that the vast majority of popes beginning from Pope Anacletus (Pope #3) all the way until Pope Damasus II (#151) have the "Church" section of their infoboxes labelled "Catholic Church". There are a few exceptions, St Peter is labelled with a "See" not "Church" and is simply called first Bishop of Rome and Antioch; Pope Linus (#2) and Pope Julius I (#35) are simply left without a "Church" or "See" in their infoboxes; then there are 2 popes labelled "Catholic Church Orthodox Church" (see 1 and 2) and the popes from Silverius (#58) to Gregory I (#64) "Chalcedonian Christianity", one pope whose name I forgot has "Church of Rome", linking to the Diocese of Rome. There could be more exceptions but I do not have the time to search for them.

Clearly, the editors of the St. Peter and St. Gregory articles realised at some point that (indirectly) calling Peter and Gregory "Catholics" would be anachronistic and biased towards the RC POV. So what then is the difference between them and the other pre-schism Popes?

It seems all popes beginning from Linus are given the anachronistic short description "Head of the Catholic Church from ... to ...". As well, I have consistently noticed throughout the biographies of the pre-schism Popes (and MANY pre-schism Christian saints) that the word "Catholic", referring to the RCC (not catholic, one of the marks of the Church) is often misused (e.g. "the Arian bishop received the letter of the Catholic bishop") when clearly the terms "orthodox" (the academic term, not directly referring to Eastern Orthodoxy) or at least "Chalcedonian" or "Nicene" (depending on the time period) should be used for neutrality. The theological/ecclesial deviations between what is now the RCC and EOC only began to sprout circa AD 600, and they would not begin to manifest greatly until the years 800-1000, finally schisming in 1054.

Another clear example of the RC POV in these articles is that of Pope Liberius, a saint in the EOC, but not in the RCC. The honorific prefix "Pope Saint" was missing from Liberius' infobox for the longest time until I recently edited it to be included, since the WP practice for people venerated as such in any major Christian confession is for "Saint" or an equivalent to be included, even if they are considered heretics by most other Christians. Even now, the list of Popes refrains from adding "St" from Liberius' entry, unlike other papal saints.

Now, regarding which Church the popes led from 33 to 1054 seems to be a matter of bias and clearly the RC POV has come out on top, for the most part; not that it's particularly shocking (popes are of the greatest interest to Roman Catholics, after all). Personally, I suggest replacing the "Church" section in the infoboxes on the popes from Linus to Damasus II to state either Early Christianity, Nicene Christianity, or Chalcedonian Christianity, depending on their time period, and "(Church of Rome)" added afterwards, linking to Roman Catholic Church, for clarification. A footnote could also be added, stating something along the lines that the Pope lived before the Great Schism (exact wording or the footnote's usefulness can be discussed later).

Regarding the short description, a clear choice would be "Bishop of Rome from ... to ...", perhaps with an ordinal added before, since "Bishop of Rome" is 13 characters shorter than "Head of the Catholic Church" and is neutral as can be. This is what is done on Pope Gregory I's short description, although combined with "Head of the Catholic Church".

Overall, I hope these changes can be carried out in due time to make the pope articles better than they were before; clearly they still have room for improvement, not just in this aspect of bias.

𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC on new non-contemporary images of popes

Firstly, I would like to state that I am of the belief that articles are boring without images, which is what motivated me to bring this up. As well, I'm bringing this up as I would like some help cropping all the images, even if they are not used for the pope article themselves.

Recently, as I was adding images for papal saints as part of a revamp of the List of Eastern Orthodox saints, I noticed time and time again that there would always be 3 types of images always available for every pope on Wikimedia Commons: the Round Portraits in Saint Paul Outside the Walls, the portraits from the 1842 publication The Lives and Times of the Popes and the Portraits from Biblioteca comunale di Trento. During a 2020 RfC, the former two categories of images were discounted from use, primarily due to consensus that the images were of low artistic and pixel quality. The issue that they are imaginary images was also brought up, however it was correctly pointed out that the lead image does not have to be an actual realistic representation of the figure, merely of some notability. This brings up the latter category of images (uploaded in their entirety in 2021?) into question for their potential usage on many obscure popes (practically all from after the 1st century and before 1054).

The Portraits from Biblioteca comunale di Trento (henceforth Trento Portraits) are 1. of high pixel quality and 2. of arguably much better artistic quality compared to the remaining options (the aforesaid forbidden Round Portraits and 1842 portraits, or else no image). The only issue with them is that they need to be cropped, as they are nearly all scans of book pages (although a few are already cropped).

Currently, the only pope article using an image from the Trento Portraits is that of Pope Caius, and I believe it demonstrates that these images can be used appropriately for just about the rest of the obscure popes without lead images (or any images). It is cropped well, still retaining a high pixel quality and most importantly, displays the subject person in their notable attributes (pallium, early papal vestments, and halo if the pope is canonised).

Hope this contributes to making the pope articles even better!

𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree and I will going to Pope articles to see if they have images or not.

If anybody can provide a list of Popes without images that would be greatly appreciated.

Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 00:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Also foreign language articles especially Italian usually have pictures that can be used, I just added an image from Pope Valentines' Italian article to the English one. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 00:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no issue with this. I can't say that efficient implementation of a mass change like this is something I can effectively help with, but if more hands are needed let me know. Maximilian775 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay! Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 12:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I propose merging Statue of Pope John XXIII into Church of St. Anthony of Padua, Istanbul. I think that there is not enough text for its own article, there is overlap in Church of St. Anthony of Padua, Istanbul which already covers a good amount of the Statue of Pope John XXIII article, and I don't think that the Statue of Pope John XXIII article is notable enough for its own article.

Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 00:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I was just coming here to see if any editors were interested in helping to expand Statue of Pope John XXIII. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to expand it I just don't think there is enough to expand it, anymore than a short start class article. I think there simply isn't enough info for its own article. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 00:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Also if the merge suggestion isn't accepted, I'm willing to expand it. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 00:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Article needing urgent attention

Theism is a level 4 vital article. It is also a very commonly used word in various religious/philosophical debates. Despite all of this, the article is in an abysmal state, being rated as "start-class" (the second lowest rating on the Wikipedia content assessment scale). This article would greatly benefit from some improvements. Brent Silby (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Should Church Fathers be called Church fathers?

A Talk:Church Fathers#Requested move 11 April 2025 to lowercase Church Fathers is in progress and may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion on specific primary source concerning Catholic literary work

There is an ongoing discussion which may of interest to the Catholic WikiProject community regarding the use of a specific primary source per WP:RSPRIMARY to support certain statements concerning the Catholic work Poem of the Man-God. The RSN discussion can be found here, and the article talk page discussion can be found here. Please consider contributing to the discussion as there appears to be a lack of informed Catholic opinion. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The Poem of the Man-God has an RfC

The Poem of the Man-God, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for potential consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

New photo for Pope Francis

Following Pope Francis's death today, there is a discussion regarding which image should be used to illustrate his infobox. Please see Talk:Pope Francis#Older image to be used?. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Seven Churches Visitation#Requested move 20 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seven Churches Visitation#Requested move 20 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Need a quick look at Illiterate popes

Hi, I just added Saint Peter to the list of illiterate popes. My addition was very hasty, I just paraphrased a part of Authorship of the Petrine epistles and copied the source used on that page, Forged by Bart Ehrman. I haven't read Forged (or any other Ehrman book, for that matter).

Can someone quickly check my edit for accuracy, and determine whether Peter really belongs there in the first place? I know that biblical criticism can get very hypothetical. Feel free to add another source or replace with a better one. Marisauna (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Marisauna: Looking really quickly at that article, I think it might not be something we should even have. Do any sources actually discuss papal illiteracy as a subject, rather than observing a particular pope was illiterate? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Cult of Pope Liberius

Does anyone have any sources that describe the suppression of Pope Liberius' western cult, or lack thereof? I've heard that he had one in the Middle Ages, but that it was suppressed in the 16th century after he became a popular topic in Protestant polemics. Marisauna (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Pope Donus II review

I recently redid the article on the unintentionaly fictional Pope Donus II. Could someone with a better understanding of Papal history perhaps add better context to his alleged existance/acknowledgement? GGOTCC 01:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox papal conclave has an RFC

Template:Infobox papal conclave has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 207.96.54.137 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Prior General of the Order of Saint Augustine

I just created a draft for Alejandro Moral Antón, the Prior General of the Order of Saint Augustine. Does holding the position make him notable? Thriley (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Pope Leo

Can anyone create a userbox for Pope Leo similar to the one for Pope Francis and post it at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion/Catholicism? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Pope Leo XIV has an RfC

Pope Leo XIV, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Style boxes

I just removed the Template:Infobox pope styles from the Leo XIV biography but I want to discuss this here before going on to purge the other 58 biographies. We used to have these style boxes across all royal and papal biographies but they fell out of favor. I, for one, do not see why the same bit of information, which is not unique to any given pope but simply comes with the office, needs to be plastered across hundreds of articles. We have enough template creep as it is.

Besides, we run the real risk of this template creeping into articles about the earlier popes, where it would be factually inaccurate. Currently the earliest pope in whose biography this template appears is Clement V, and I do have strong doubts about whether the style "Your Holiness" was actually used in the early 14th century. Can we just explain this in Pope and/or Holiness (style) articles? Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox ordination history duplicated?

The infoboxes in the biographies of popes, and presumably of other bishops, have ordination history in the main part of the template and then again in the embedded, collapsed "Ordination history" bit at the bottom of the infobox. Why should we have the same information presented twice? Are these templates not big enough as it is? Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

consensus for bishop of Rome in all Pope page leads?

It looked like we had soft consensus for this on Francis talk, but just want to go over it here. The idea is that every individual Pope page should have a link to Pope in the first paragraph in the same place.

I'd like to change each first sentence to the format: Pope [_____] was bishop of Rome, head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State

There is inconsistent application of 'THE bishop of Rome' across pages. Other bishops' pages do not use 'the', some early pope pages use the bishop of Rome, some use bishop of Rome. Is omitting 'the' across all pages ok?

earliest popes would have just "bishop of Rome" in the first sentence, pre-Vatican State popes would have "ruler of the Papal States"

I'll maintain the language used in any instances of disputed sovereignty in the middle ages.

I'm happy to go through and do this myself, but if somebody else decides to beat me to it, I'd just ask to please be consistent across all pages. Mikewem (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Emphasis on the pope as the bishop of Rome first and foremost has waxed and waned over time (Francis particularly emphasized it). Unifying them all in their wording in this way feels a little un-NPOV imposing a particular view of the papacy over all Wikipedia pope articles. 20:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem: If anything is to be added in the lead? let it be "pope". GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Can’t say ‘Pope X was pope’ per rfc. I guess I can settle for “bishop of Rome” in the infobox being the link. But I’ve found the overwhelming usage in RS is not to write “the” before bishop in this context. Our pages are all over the place with this “the”.

But you can start off with "X was pope". GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I plan to standardize the Pope link in the infobox. I would like to make all instances of infobox “Pope” link to List of popes and all instances of “Pope Saint” link to List of canonised popes. Mikewem (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Start off with just the pontiff's name, that'll take care of overusing pope. The intro doesn't have to be exactly like the article title. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you’re right, I think that solves a couple problems with one stone, and I would vote yes in an rfc to that effect Mikewem (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)