Talk:Patriarchs of the East

Requested move 2 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Patriarchs of the east → Patriarchs of the East – WP:Common, WP:Consistency. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 00:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose simply because of the lazy ratinale. Some explanation of why nom thinks it common or a proper name, or what it's too be consistent with, is not too much to ask, is it? OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. "East" here is used as a proper noun. All the people with this title will use it as such, so it should be capitalized.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Agree about the lazy rationale, but the bottom line is the reader, and User:Cuchullain has filled in the rationale in any case (thank you). Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with the two other supports, namely that "the East" is certainly a proper noun. Wolfdog (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split

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

No consensu to split Hzh (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Split proposed. Please see hatnote. Please note that there are no interwikilinks. This is essentially an arbitrary list of any and all patriarchates in Eastern Christianity, and for no obvious reasons as a standalone article. If even that - is it simply a list of patriarchs that share the name "East" in them? Why would this be necessary as a scope? We don't have anything equivalent on patriarchates in Western Christianity, and for good reasons. It would all better be collected simply and with a proper overview at Patriarchate - west as well as east - while some detailed information that would be redundant there could be moved to the specific individual patriarchates in question. PPEMES (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This article should be about the title Patriarch of the East. Maybe it needs a little cleanup and citations, but a split makes no sense. Yes, the history of the eastern churches is confusing. Yes, our coverage of it ranges from quite good to, more often, absolutely terrible. But we need overarching articles like this. Srnec (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be that confusing. I'm trying to understand you. Is it a Patriarchate of Antioch disambiguative article that you in fact see a raison d'être for? That I could agree with. But for a "of the East", I still don't get it. PPEMES (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And I don't get what you want. A split of what? This is basically a dab page. It is possibly redundant to Patriarchate of Antioch and Catholicos of the East, so it needs to be pared down, redirected or deleted. But what do you mean by split? Srnec (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that what split means? PPEMES (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to me. If you wish to turn this into a redirect to Patriarchate of Antioch or Catholicos of the East, go ahead. If you don't, I probably will eventually. Srnec (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think both a Church of Antioch and Patriarchate of Antioch is needed? And should really all contents be simply moved there, and nothing distributed elsewhere? PPEMES (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You ask a lot of questions, but do not propose clear answers. We don't have an article titled Patriarchate of Antioch. Srnec (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, meant Patriarch of Antioch. Anyway, so did reach consensus to rename tvis article to Patriarchate of Antioch as a disambiguation page? PPEMES (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep: The split suggests less information (or no information) is better information. To my mind, the present "Patriarchs of the East" is a very useful dab page that leads to all the pages a reader needs. A redirect to Patriarchate of Antioch or Catholicos of the East is not useful and just adds to confusion or arbitrary redirecting to one section and not the other. The existing page, if kept, can be improved through a better listing and with some additional "See also"s. Caveats added to our present article could explain what exactly a "Patriarch of the East" is meant in the page, and some words of caution to the reader would be useful and clarify the concept. But to destroy the page and fragment it to tens of pages is useless and makes the concept as "well now its anybody's guess. Reader, do your own research and find your way if you can. If you can't, tough luck. Just wonder left and right and you'd eventually bump up into some of them if you're lucky and if you are determined and persevere in your hours of blind search, hurrah, you'll find some of them and that gives you bragging rights and self-congratulation of a great work done for a tough challenge". Is that what we want our readers to go through to get the information they need? As for leading the page into some arbitrary vague umbrella title redirect, well that serves no purpose either. It just leads to a subset which may be as confusing to the reader. Having said that, a renaming to "List of Patriarchs of the East" could be contemplated for example. werldwayd (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Close discussion and remove the talk note. This discussion is dead and no decision was taken to close the issue. Meanwhile the eyesore remains at the top of the pageof Patriarchs of the East. Please close and remove the annoying template that has resulted in no meaningful support. I say the all-encompassing page is a good resume and we don't need to lead the public to a blind adventure of no focus but of utter hocus pocus. werldwayd (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Second reminder to close the page and remove the note It is clear that the proposal has no support except for the colleague who suggested it. It is time to close this thread and remove the note from multiple pages where they were put two years ago and still stand without resolution or support. werldwayd (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.