Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Catholicism / Cath. canon law (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconWikiProject Catholicism is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Catholic canon law task force.
Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Requested move at Talk:Franciscus Renatus Boussen#Requested move 7 August 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franciscus Renatus Boussen#Requested move 7 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Joan of ArcEdit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

At it againEdit

See [1] Horse Eye's Back has posted a list questioning the reliability of what appear to be some often used sources -without advising a group most likely to possibly use them. Some may be reliable, some may not be. Different people will have different opinions, which is why I bring this here. I don't use Catholic Online, but I like New Advent for its access to CE and Ante-Nicene fathers etc. He, of course, does not consider CE reliable. A bit outdated in some respects, but not too bad on a good deal of standard stuff. This comes after a campaign of WP:DRIVEBY cn tags for both articles bearing a CE template indicating where the info came from, as well as, things that clearly fall under WP:SKYBLUE. This was followed by a continuing spate of notability tags (see above). As a wise woman once said, "AGF is not a suicide pact." Manannan67 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Manannan67: the NewAdvent and C-H portions are goofy (considering we have the WikiSource citation for CE pretty well established and use similar means of data collection as C-H). If you think good faith isn't present, though, you should take this up with HEB directly or one of the admin noticeboards. As best I can tell, HEB is trying to make sure material is reliably sourced but at the expense of ignoring those with subject-matter expertise—both are something a simple talk page message or response response on the linked notice board could potentially resolve. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti: CE WikiSource is drawn from New Advent. Although I use both, I prefer New Advent because it includes links to related topics and includes the contributors sources, which wikisource sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. As for CH: that has been discussed ad nauseum. What I can make out is that it is OK as a source on historical bishops or the general hierarchy of the Catholic Church but not for BLPs. Manannan67 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I do take subject-matter expertise into consideration, unless I am mistaken none of the sources I took to RSN are published by subject-matter experts (please interpret that as an open invitation to let me know if I am mistaken). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
That's blatant wp:canvassing, you can only notify wikiprojects of an ongoing discussion with a neutral summary... Blackening my name behind my back is not the way to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Behind your Back?!?! This is not "canvassing". See WP:APPNOTE: "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." You should have done it yourself. The fact that you chose not to bring it here at all says a lot. Manannan67 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
"Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Also just FYI "A bit outdated in some respects, but not too bad on a good deal of standard stuff." is also my opinion of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. My issue with its use is generally one of due weight (it is an archaic source after all), not reliability. Also to quote a famous dog who's leg do I have hump do be called they here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears that CE is generally used as a framework upon which editors add more recent scholarship. As to whether or not they actually get around to it, is another matter, and depends, I suppose, on how obscure the subject matter is. Most of the CE contributors were well-respected in their particular fields, and often provide details that is either unavailable elsewhere or that later writers don't. I don't see what the problem is. Manannan67 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is challenging CE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard has an RFCEdit


Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard has an RFC for regarding the reliability of New Advent, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, as a source on Wikipedia. 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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Article deletion discussionEdit

This is just a casual reminder for those on this WikiProject to set Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity‎ to your watchlist! Backlogs on relisted AfDs are all too common and commenting on just one AfD a month will substantially reduce this! Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on intros of papal biosEdit

An RFC concerning papal intros is being held. Input there, would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Christian liturgiesEdit

As I was making edits to the Catholic Church article, I was looking for a good summary article of the various Eastern-rite liturgies, and could find none other than a few bare lists. This would be a valuable article to have, even if its not much list with a paragraph or two for each rite, describing when/where it originated and any distinguishing characteristics. I may start one, but if anyone is ambiguous you are welcome to as well. –Zfish118talk 16:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want a single summary article for a dozen disparate liturgies? They are each well-served by their respective main articles, and I do not believe that a single article could easily or succinctly compare and contrast them.
I am not really aware of a lot of sources that we could draw upon for such a project, either. Most scholars tend toward a historiography of a single rite's development, because comparing even two Eastern rites would be extraordinarily complex, cross-discipline, and cross-cultural. Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
By that same logic, there would be no need for an article about Eastern Christianity, because the churches are too disparate and well-served by their respective main articles. There is a category of liturgical rites that are referenced in multiple places, but no article outlining these liturgies in any systematic way beyond repeating the same list over and over. All I am looking for is a summary to substantiate the various bare lists, not necessarily exegeses comparing and contrasting them. –Zfish118talk 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for not noticing this earlier but I'm in the process of three articles covering this topic: Use (liturgy), Rite, and Eastern Catholic liturgy. I will submit them for your review, Zfish, once I'm further along. I'll change gears and expedite the Eastern Cath liturgy article; expect something around 10 Oct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Consider this something of a long-lead notice of my intention to create two pages to supplant Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites: one for "Christian liturgical rites" without a singularly Catholic focus (and exclusionary of Masonic rites etc.) and "Eastern Catholic liturgy" to cover the terminology, history, and forms of that topic. From there, I hope we can abridge the aforementioned extant article to cover the topic of particular churches more exclusively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zfish118:, @Elizium23:, and @Pbritti:, a summary article on Christian liturgy is a very good idea, the demarcation of Christian liturgy as "Eastern" or "Western" really is artificial and somewhat arbitrary, and it varies with perspective. Several of the ancient oriental churches would regard the churches of the Orthodox Communion as part of western Christianity, and thus would regard the Byzantine Rite as a western rite rather than an eastern rite. Thus, the summary article should encompass ALL Christian rites and uses. "Christian liturgical rites and uses" or "Christian liturgy" might be possible titles for such an article.

As to the question of what such an article should include, here are some suggestions.
  • 1. A map, or even a series of maps, illustrating the geographical regions where the various rites and uses evolved
  • 2. A hierarchical listing, or even timeline graphic or family tree, showing the evolution and, where appropriate, suppression of the various rites and uses
  • 3. A brief summary of the historical evolution and distinctive features of each rite or use
  • 4. A link to the main article about each rite and its various uses
  • 5. Clear identification of the bodies that employ each rite or use (both Catholic sui juris ritual churches and non-Catholic bodies)

And yes, the discussion should include the liturgical practices of various Protestant bodies. Norm1979 (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Norm1979: An article on Christian liturgy already exists, as does one on Protestant liturgy (and the narrower Reformed worship). The article Catholic liturgy has zilch in the practical sense and may require a major overhaul independent of what we're discussing, as it seems to be redundant subject-wise to Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites and Latin liturgical rites. Right now, articles specifically addressing the terms "Rite" (in the context of ritual families) and "Use" are in my sandbox and are about 25% done. Another on Eastern Catholic liturgy is also in my sandbox, probably 33% done. The modern terminology regarding Eastern and Western rites are fairly well established, and "Western" almost exclusively applies to Latin liturgical rites and Protestant liturgies developed from them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:William Mulvey#Requested move 25 September 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William Mulvey#Requested move 25 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 00:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Requested move 17 September 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Requested move 17 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Show of handsEdit

Is Santa Maria de Monserrato (est 1889) the same as "the Abbey of Our Lady of Montserrat" also known as São Bento Monastery (est 1890)? Coincidental names? founded within a year of each other by Benedictines in the same city. (Most of the Santa Maria page looks like outdated CE material; if so, that could be trimmed and moved to the Brazilian Congregation article.) Please respond to Talk:Santa Maria de Monserrato. Thank you very much. Manannan67 (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


Hello all, I feel like this discussion may have been had before but I cannot find it so will ask now. On pages such as dioceses, should the metropolitan parameter be filled with the metropolitan archdiocese or metropolitan archbishop? I have seen both cases across different articles, as well as some which use the archdiocese's main city. Would be good to get a conclusion on this. Thanks in advance, Vesuvio14 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vesuvio14: the Metropolitan parameter, if filled, should give the name of the metropolitan bishop of the ecclesiastical province or similar body that the diocese is a part of. If the diocese is itself a metropolitan see, leave the parameter empty. It can become more complicated when dealing with Oriental Orthodox dioceses and these parameters, as some metropolitans may occasionally overlap in their own sees or in suffragans. Let me know if there's ever a tricky case and I'll help! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
On one of the articles you started, St Aldhelm's Roman Catholic Church, Malmesbury, you filled the ecclesiastical province and metropolis parameters. Typically, this isn't necessary except in chases such as parishes of the Exarchate of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Toronto, a jurisdiction for Slovak Catholics that is part of a Ruthenian metropolis. While information is always nice, unless sourcing explicitly refers to a parish's metropolis, the information is superfluous and can confuse a reader about which ordinary has authority. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti: Thanks for letting me know! Two things; do you therefore think that the metropolitan parameter in diocese info boxes should be under the leadership section rather than location? Also, should this be the metropolitan archbishops’ name or title e.g. Archbishop of Westminster or Vincent Nichols? Vesuvio14 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Considering that essentially every metropolitan in the Church is either an archbishop/archeparch or patriarch/major-archbishop, I wouldn't worry about inserting honorifics. Of course, we have more defined policy to this end at WP:HONORIFICS. I typically delete them when I encounter them unless there's something unique about the person's title. Also, I'm sure you're already aware, but if a diocese or similar is "exempt", link to the concept as it's fairly niche nomenclature. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much! Vesuvio14 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Is the name of the Metropolitan Archbishop relevant in mos diocesan articles? I could anticipate a limited number of cases where this might be relevant. It would seem to me the parameter is ambiguous and might be revised into two explicit "metropolitan archbishop" and "metropolitan archdiocese" parameters. That way, when it's relevant, it's consistently used. –Zfish118talk 15:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the utility of the "Metropolitan" parameter is trivial in almost all Latin jurisdictions, though in non-Catholic dioceses and a number of Eastern Catholic contexts it is decently important. The disambiguation is intended through the "Ecclesiastical province" parameter, but obviously that isn't working. "Metropolitan archbishop" carries its own issues as not every metropolitan is an archbishop (or equivalent). Some churches don't even modify the term "metropolitan"; the Malankara Jacobites and Orthodox both just call those of that station "metropolitans". I'm open to solutions; it's obvious there's a problem. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. The {{infobox diocese}} template is maximally inclusive. There is no need for us to fill in fields which do not apply or are redundant. Infoboxes are for at-a-glance relevant information only. A suffragan diocese can list its archdiocese. In other cases, for example, a suffragan ordinary bishop, I do not see a need to list the archdiocese (or archbishop) at all. When listing a leader who is not directly covered in the article, we run the risk of unmaintainability as well, because upon their succession someone will have to track down all mentions. Elizium23 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattam familyEdit

As this family has ties to Christian/Catholic history, editors may wish to comment here. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

List of people not actually beatified by Pope FrancisEdit

Hi Wikiproject!

This article follows the format and structure set up by predecessors, however things on the ground are different now. Firstly, we cannot add "future beatifications" to articles like this because of WP:CRYSTAL. You can discuss an upcoming event in article prose at the base article but a list like this needs to be restricted to verifiable events only.

Now, as I mentioned on its talk page, Pope Francis isn't really beatifying anyone directly anymore. He signs off and then the beatification ceremony is held locally. That means not in Vatican City, not in Rome, mostly not in Italy, etc. So the article title is rather misleading: Pope Francis does not participate in these beatification ceremonies other than sending out the decree.

I think that this is an opportune time for us to consider how we structure these articles (think about also the venerated and canonized people as well.) Perhaps one article per year, rather than per pope? List of people beatified in the Catholic Church in 2022 for example. A navbox can link them together and they would typically be a good manageable size. It wouldn't matter who is Pope or who is signing decrees. People could be listed month-by-month or by region-continent?

And for Pete's sake, can we please add reliable sources for these? Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We could take this opportunity to rename the article to something that denotes beatifications under a particular pontificate. Agree on everything you've said here. Lean towards a continental organization with it done chronologically under each continent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with the assessment that Pope Francis doesn't beatifying just because he doesn't go to the ceremony. In the 2005 communique from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints which created the norm that beatification ceremonies happen in a local diocese, Cardinal Martins suggests that even though the new norm is that they are presided over by a papal emissary, beatification is "nonetheless a Pontifical act."
I don't think a name change makes sense here.
Moreover, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Numerous media sources use this "beatified by Pope Francis" phrasing. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 23Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 23. Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church § Ordination of women to the priesthoodEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church § Ordination of women to the priesthood. Elizium23 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Review my BLPEdit

Hi everyone, I wrote my first BLP (first article entirely, in fact), today — it's a local auxiliary bishop.

If you have a minute, could you take a look? I'm concerned in particular about using as a source.

Draft:Joseph Dabrowski Ethamn (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox flagsEdit

A search failed me. Can anyone remember a prior discussion we had about allowing flag icons in diocesan infoboxes? Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG I was able to justify this as dioceses are "human geography" and "administrative divisions" but I'm not sure we had a solid consensus or a widespread discussion on it. It may have been restricted to a couple article talk pages. Elizium23 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I recall being told something to the end that diocesan articles were not to have flags about a year ago but I haven't a clue of where to find that interaction or the consensus it cited. I lean towards excluding them as nations generally hold little actual authority over ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does seem to say diocesan articles can have flags. I'll avoid removing them going forward. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)