Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

RFC:Time to debate "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic" versus nothing again

With the recent departure of a number of the most vigorous supporters of the usage of "Roman Catholic" from Wikipedia, it might be time to formally reopen the matter for discussion so that a renewed, revised, and improved set of consensuses can be developed on the topic.

Linked here are a series of debates, discussions, and consensus-building precedent on the issue of using the term "Roman Catholic": 2006, 2017, 2021

While the above links are perhaps the smallest snapshot of the discussions surrounding the terminology of "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic" on the talk pages of this website, they represent the facts at the crux of this issue:

• "Roman Catholic" is a valid, academically accepted term
• "Roman Catholic" is a contentious, often debated term
• "Roman Catholic" means different things at different times ("Do you mean Catholics in Rome, the 'Latin Church,' or every Catholic in communion with the Pope of Rome?")
• There are different communions that use the term "Catholic"
• Generally these organizations self-distinguish between themselves and Catholics in communion with Rome ("Liberal Catholic Church," "Old Catholic Church," "Polish National Catholic Church")
• The Catholic Church contains 23 Eastern Catholic Churches that often very much resent the term "Roman Catholic" or interpret it in a mightily different way (looking at you, Melkites)

So, what's the solution? I will list a series of proposals for discussion. Please feel free to agree with some and disagree with others. This is simply about creating a clearer, more wieldable precedent that will be serve as a SOP for this Wikiproject's articles.

• Proposal 1: In articles primarily pertaining to matters in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the term "Roman Catholic" may be retained in-text as the established and traditional term for both the entire Catholic Church and Latin Church in these regions is "Roman Catholic." This does not mean all articles written in British English must use "Roman Catholic."
• Proposal 2: Articles on the Catholic Church in a particular nation should not use the term "Roman Catholic" int their title, as generally there are Catholic of both the Latin and Eastern Churches in these nations.
• Proposal 3: Articles on the Catholic Church's history, doctrine, theology, or relationship with third-parties should not use the term "Roman Catholic” as, with limited exception, the articles pertain to matters involving the entire Catholic Church. This does not apply to matters primarily dealing with affairs in the nations addressed in Proposal 1.
• Proposal 4: Articles on the Catholic Church’s ecclesiastical jurisdictions (dioceses, apostolic vicariates, etc.) should not use any modifier in their title unless necessary to distinguish them from an ecclesiastical jurisdiction of a similar name within a major denomination or other sui iuris church. In such cases, article titles will read “Archdiocese of XXXX (Catholic Church)” or “[Sui Iuris Church] Eparchy of XXXX”. This rule will not apply in nations discussed in Proposal 1.

Preemptively addressing some of the criticisms frequently brought up:

• “We already have a consensus”: While this is frequently said, very rarely are actual specific consensuses cited. It is imperative we develop a citable consensus, particularly one developed by more editors more recently. I don’t mind terribly if it is the opposite of my proposals; having such a consensus would prevent edit-warring.
• “But X denomination considers itself ‘catholic’”: This is an interesting comment, insofar as it is effectively impractical: the Catholic Church in communion with Rome necessarily considers itself “orthodox,” “eastern” (and “western”), “anglican”, or essentially every other identifying title other denominations actively refer to themselves as. In casual discussion, academic discussion, and even most inter-religious dialogue, the average observer is not confused by the term “Catholic” as to what the meaning is. Better to generalize and simply to the highest common denominator that is still readily recognizable as the specific matter under discussion.
• ”Roman Catholic’ in article name is a necessary distinguisher”: In that case, we must alter ever Anglican diocese article name or accept a double standard.

If you are even only cursorily involved in this Wikiproject’s articles or care about accuracy, precision, and anti-edit-warring, this is your opportunity to have a lasting impact on Wikipedia and the public understanding of one of the most wide-reaching topics around. Thanks ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, yes, this has been hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum.... But with respect to your proposals:

• Proposal 1: I see no reason whatsoever to adopt a different practice for a handful of countries. That can only lead to confusion.
• Proposal 2: I concur completely.
• Proposal 3: Again, I concur completely. The correct term is "Catholic" when referring to the whole of the Catholic Church, or to that which applies to the whole of the Catholic Church (doctrine, etc.). But the accepted term is "Roman Catholic" when referring specifically to the Roman/Latin church.
• Proposal 4: The implementation of your proposal would be a monumental task because you would need to change both every article about a particular church (probably doable) and every article containing a link to those articles (good luck finding all of them!), and it would also create major problems in the road. To illustrate this, if you change the title of the article about my diocese from "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston" to simply "Archdiocese of Boston" and another denomination establishes an Archdiocese of Boston of its own ten or fifteen years from now, your approach would create the need to change both the title of the article about the existing archdiocese and the links in every Wikipedia article that contains one or more links to it back to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston" in conjunction with deploying the article about the new jurisdiction. The current practice of including the words "Roman Catholic" in the title also give the reader immediate indication of the body to which the ecclesiastical jurisdiction belongs, making it easy for Wikipedia users to be certain that they have the article for which they are looking. Note that this is is also true of both ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the Catholic sui juris ritual churches (the article about the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkite Catholic Church should bear the title "Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton" rather than simply "Eparchy of Newton") and ecclesiastical jurisdictions of other denominations (the title of the article about the Diocese of Massachusetts of The Episcopal Church (TEC) should be "Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts" rather than simply "Diocese of Massachusetts").

The present standardization clearly makes life easier for all concerned!

And, for what it's worth, editing names of articles about Anglican/Episcopal dioceses that don't contain the denominational affiliation most assuredly would be a much easier task than editing the names of articles about Roman Catholic Dioceses, because there are a LOT fewer of them! Norm1979 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, I concur with Norm1979: No to proposal 1. Yes to proposals 2/3. Regarding Proposal 4: Yes, the double standard between Catholic/Anglican dioceses is problematic, but the better solution would be to rename the Anglican/Episcopal diocese articles, as Norm1979 suggests. Having the ecclesial communion in the article name helps readers ensure they've found the right page. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Jdcompguy and Norm1979. I suggest you at the minimum reconsider Proposal 1 on the basis that, having spoken with our compatriots in the Anglican, Methodist, and Eastern Orthodox Wikipedia communities, they are generally unwilling to accept "Catholic" over "Roman Catholic." With that in mind, I suggest we produce something of an essay discussing the term "Roman Catholic" that will permanently serve as the reference point for usage of the term across Wikipedia. Obviously, it will be non-binding, but I would like to muster a group of signatories from this Wikiproject to accompany this essay to give it some authority. Additionally, in reference to Norm1979's point of "Roman Catholic" being accepted in reference to the Latin Church, the whole point of Proposal 2 is to eliminate the confusion this term brings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The last discussion was less than six months ago. Why is this coming up yet again? "With the recent departure of a number of the most vigorous supporters of the usage of "Roman Catholic" from Wikipedia," WT!?!?! Manannan67 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, the objections/outcry of which you speak over the use of the word "Catholic" undoubtedly comes from people who don't understand the distinction between the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" because they are not Catholic (though, truthfully, many Catholics are not aware of this distinction, either...),, so I concur completely that Wikipedia should have a clear explanation of the distinction between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" -- but that the explanation should be in the main articles that bear the titles "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" rather than in some sort of essay that we pass around informally when people of another denomination complain.

* The main article with the title "Catholic Church" should contain a list of all of the sui juris ritual churches and the head (patriarch or major archbishop) and liturgical rite of each, including the Latin Church, with a link to a main article about that sui juris ritual church, structured so it's clear that the Roman Catholic Church is equal to the others even though it is much larger than the others and the Catholic pope is, ex officio, its head. This could be in the form of a table that also shows the size and other relevant data of each ritual church.

* There also should be a separate main article for each sui juris ritual church, including the Roman Catholic Church, which identifies it as a subset of the Catholic Church and links to the main article on the Catholic Church.

BTW, I say "Catholic pope" because the head of the Coptic Church also uses the title of pope -- which means that articles about Catholic popes also should include the word "Catholic" in their titles and the main article with the title of "Popes" should state that both denominations use the title and contain links to main articles with the titles of "Catholic Pope" and "Coptic Pope" that discuss the popes of the respective churches.

Unfortunately, I can't commit much time to assist in this effort right now because I'm buried in admissions interviews for my alma mater and we have a couple thousand early action applicants who still don't have interviewers assigned, and we usually have twice as many applicants in Regular Action as in Early Action. But I hope that this helps! Norm1979 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Norm1979! Best of luck and Godspeed with those efforts in your professional life. Some of these things you mention have been completed, but your recommendations are certainly a good proposal. I might reach out to you on your talk page in a month or so when I’ve complete those things that are not done already. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, you're welcome, and thank you for your kind words! I'm always glad to be more of an "asset" than the first 3/5 of one....  ;-) Norm1979 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A typical sign identifying a parish church as a Roman Catholic Church in the United States

• I am just seeing this "RFC", and still believe the status quo regarding "Roman Catholic" is acceptable, and that no major changes are appropriate or desirable. It would be a violation of neutral point of view to pretend the term "Roman Catholic" isn't frequently used by the Church itself, and thus must be purged from Wikipedia. I myself see it written on nearly every church building I encounter. I also resent the tone of this discussion, as it is dismissive and condescending towards long time contributors. Everything else I have to say about the subject is said here, and all of it still applies: "Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic?" –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Zfish118, but think you received the discussion in a personal manner that is inappropriate. As you can see by looking at the above discussion, common usage of the term "Roman Catholic" is discussed in a rational fashion. Consensuses can change. Your essay, while useful for understanding your perspective and the discussions that occurred early in the Wiki's history, is not universally applicable and the topic clearly requires more thorough project consensus considering the frequency I and other editors run up against it. Thank you for the partial revert and feel free address any of the formal points raised above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to "receive" the discussion in a non-personal manner, since you state at top you are trying to avoid editors who disagree with the proposal. That is not how you build a consensus. To address you points, each seems to be a solution in search of a problem. They are purely in advance of the point of view that "Roman Catholic" is inappropriate. If you disagree with that axiom, I do not see any case for these proposals.

• Proposal 1: "Roman Catholic" is also extremely common in the United States, in addition to the Commonwealth nations you list. Virtually the whole English speaking world uses "Roman Catholic". There is no reason to exclude use of a common English term, nor restrict it use to Commonwealth nations.
• Proposal 2: Roman Catholic refers to the churches in communion with Rome. It is a recent innovation to retroactively apply it to the Latin Church exclusively; historically it has meant all 23, and is used in that manner by the Vatican. Roman Catholic is the natural disambiguation when multiple orthodox or other "catholic" churches exist in a nation.
• Proposal 3: See response to Proposal 2; as Roman Catholic is the whole church, not just the Latin Church. There is no reason to exclude it from doctrine and history articles.
• Proposal 4: How does this offer any clarity to the user? Roman Catholic provides a natural disambiguation, and virtually all dioceses use this convention. There is no good reason to revise this. There is certainly no pressing reason to use a different convention in English speaking countries versus non-English speaking countries, since virtually all English speaking countries use "Roman Catholic" commonly and frequently. You are proposing to remove a consistent category for a series of diocese names with ad-hoc disambiguation, solely for the purpose of getting rid of the term "Roman Catholic". –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Thank you for your review of the points involved. Considering my posting this discussion on the WikiProject page, I don't understand the accusation that I am trying to "avoid editors who disagree with the proposal," especially since I have engaged with some of them here. A minor point of confusion I would like you to expound on: if "Roman Catholic" is the whole church as you say in response to Proposal 3, then why is it how we distinguish Latin dioceses from Eastern Catholic ones? Seems inconsistent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is an inconsistency. However, the goal is natural disambiguation, not shoehorning consistency. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've only seen this discussion now on my watchlist. What is the problem leading to needing a change in consensus? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, I would refer you to the previous discussion for an answer to your question and hope for comment. Zfish118, if the natural disambiguation is the goal, would "Catholic" not then capture the same idea in a shortened form and "Latin Catholic" be more precise? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Catholic is ambiguous as several church bodies unaffiliated with the pope self-identify as such. Latin is not natural; outside of formal situations, the "Latin Church" by name is rarely discussed, and few if any dioceses or church bodies publicly advertise themselves as a "Latin". Roman Catholic, however, is common and readily understood. A._C._Santacruz This was last discussed in June 2021; I don't see any changes in circumstances since that time. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but some church bodies unaffiliated with the pope also use the term "Roman Catholic" and I hazard to guess few people would be confounded by "Catholic Diocese of X" any more than "Roman Catholic." Further, the referenced RfC is something I included in my original message and never returned a conclusive consensus. In the spirit of having a citable consensus for when this eventually gets archived, I will withdraw it and suggest retention of the status quo for diocesan articles but still believe actual conversation–rather than affronting suggestions that require rapid reversion–will ultimately be necessary. In any case, I encourage all those on the project help clean up the diocesan articles; they are often quite dreadful. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not clear what you mean. Are you withdrawing all four proposals, or just the diocesan one? I would also appreciate your comment on why "Roman Catholic" is inappropriate, despite its frequent use by dioceses and parishes.–Zfish118^⋉talk 14:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Zfish, you are utterly wrong about standard use of the term "Roman Catholic." This term refers exclusively to the Roman Rite, also sometimes called the Latin church. The sui juris ritual churches have full ecclesiastical communion with the Bishop of Rome do NOT call themselves "Roman Catholic" under any circumstances. They all have "Catholic" in their names, but NOT "Roman." For example, here in Massachusetts, there are TWO catholic cathedrals within the city of Boston -- the Cathedral of the Holy Cross of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, and the Cathedral of the Annunciation of the Melkite Catholic Diocese of Newton. If you look through the list of dioceses in the United States on the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), you'll see this usage for the jurisdictions of all of the sui juris ritual churches -- Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix, Armenian Catholic Eparchy of Our Lady of Nareg in the USA & Canada, Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of St. Peter the Apostle, etc. The sui juris ritual churches of non-Roman rite are NOT "Roman Catholic" in any proper usage of that term. Norm1979 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Norm1979 I am correct on this matter, that "Roman Catholic" refers to the entire church, though it is a convenient and least confusing to use it with the Latin Church in particular. It is the plain meaning of the term in any dictionary or encyclopedia. You may also refer to the Baltimore Catechism or numerous other official documents dating into at least this decade use the term to refer to the church as a whole. Please refrain from hyperbolic statements that suggest I am utterly ignorant. –Zfish118^⋉talk 02:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Norm1979: With respect, Zfish118 is actually very correct: up until recently (well, "recently" in the ecclesiastical scheme of things), the term "Roman Catholic" was broadly applied to all in communion with the pope of Rome. The term "Roman Rite" is almost exclusively applied to the liturgical rituals delineated within the Roman Missal(s), Roman Breviary/Liturgy of the Hours, and other ritual texts of the Roman Rite (though there are those that use the term "Roman Rite Catholic" when describing themselves). "Latin rite" and the discussed "Roman Catholic" are the terms most often conflated with the Latin Church, and have been used semi-regularly by even the Vatican to describe the Latin Church. Also, I can refer you to a Melkite text that refers to itself as "Roman Catholic": the Byzantine Missal by Raya and de Vinck (yes, yes, I know there are Melkites that will contend they meant something else). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, these diocesan titles you mention (the "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston," the "Melkite Catholic Diocese of Newton") are regularly used names but not their actual names. Indeed, the "Archdiocese of Boston" is the full name of the jurisdiction, and the "Eparchy of Newton" is the Melkite jurisdiction's name. Even more properly, neither colloquialism "Roman Catholic" and "Melkite" would be used in the names, as it would be the "Latin Church Archdiocese of Boston" and the "Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton" (but these again are not the jurisdictional names). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti, yes, you are absolutely correct that the affiliation is not part of the official title of a diocese or canonically equivalent entity. But the problem is that this is true of every denomination, and there is no unique right to the title of a diocese. The Roman Catholic Church has a Diocese of Fort Worth, and The Episcopal Church (TEC) also has, or at least had, a Diocese of Fort Worth (which apparently formally left TEC and joined the Anglican Churcn in North America (ACNA), but still retains the title of Diocese of Fort Worth). Thus, disambiguation is necessary -- and the best way to provide it is to include the affiliation in the title of the respective articles. And such entities do come and go, so the least painful practice for those of us who are Wikipedia editors is to include the affiliation on every article about a diocese (or equivalent jurisdiction) so that we don't have to go through the process of changing not only the article, but also every reference to it that may appear in other articles, when a new diocese comes into being that creates a name conflict. Changing the title of a Wikipedia article is pretty easy, but finding all of the links to it in other articles would be very difficult. Norm1979 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Norm1979 I think you are in part confused as to the proposal here, but I will add that changing an article name does not automatically break every link on other articles because of redirects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the ngram Manabimasu (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Dioceses, Eparchies, Patriarchies

The following suggestion is not Wp:common but WP:IAR. For the example, look at Baghdad. Two sources Gcatholic and Catholic-hierarchy may not give the same name. Since Latin is the eccclesiastical language of the church. Both sources will have the same latin name. Suggestion - Use the English translation of the Latin name

• Latin Archdiocese catholic-hierarchy, gcatholic
• Syriac Archeparchy catholic-hierarchy gcatholic
• Chaldean Patriarchate gcatholic, catholic-hierarchy

Better yet source is Annuario Pontifico, the notizie being the predecessor. Anyone know if the AP is in English? Thoughts? Manabimasu (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

One note, on the Chaldean Patriarchate, due to the recent name change, we may not be certain of the new Latin name until the AP 2023 is published in about a year. Dcheney (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Papal infobox content

The following discussion 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.

---

It's time (once & for all) that we decide what we want & don't want in the infoboxes of the popes.
Up to Pope Innocent III, we've got variations of

• Church = Catholic Church (or a variation of it)
• Diocese = Rome (or a variation of it)
• See = Holy See.
  

We had the latter two in the infoboxes from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis, which I've since removed. We have none of the three entries in all the papal bio infoboxes (I removed a few), between Innocent III & Pius XII. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
So, can we once & for all come to a consensus on this matter? Shall we do the following to the infoboxes

• A) Add in the -Church-
• B) Add in the -Diocese-
• C) Add in the -See-
• D) Include all three
• E) Exclude all three

Survey

• E - Let's not crowd up the top of the papal bio infoboxes, with redundant entries. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• E. ((Summoned by bot)) It's clutter. Herostratus (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• E (Summoned by bot) Per above. Would just be redundant clutter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• A (invited by the bot) Include "Roman Catholic Church" to clarify from the related ones. The other two are just clutter.North8000 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• B - include Dicocese, exclude Church and See. Diocese is the most general term: the RC church has several dioceses of which one an apostolic see and is the seat of the Pope. From a data-science perspective, this is the most informative of the three properties. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• E – Perhaps including "Catholic Church" to distinguish from Coptic papacy but that shouldn't an issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• E per GoodDay's comment. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• E It's clutter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• A BCD are just clutter in the infobox, but I think it wouldn't be clutter to have A in there. If not A, I would vote E over B or C Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• E Agree, it is unnecessary clutter.Dcheney (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• E Keep it concise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• A - Add in Catholic Church, so there is no room for confusion between the Roman pope and various eastern popes. Skimming the infobox should make it clear which church he led. "Pope" at the top might also be wikilinked; the template would need to be modified, as adding the wikilink breaks the papal formatting. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

IMHO, having those 'extras' in the infoboxes aren't necessary. But most important to me is consistency on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Follow my contribs on these bios, for a better understanding of what I'm getting at. I've removed a few more (Church, Diocese, See) from infoboxes & put in my edit-summary Redundant, which is how I see having them there to begin with. We already have Bishop of Rome at the top of the infobox, so the Diocese = Rome isn't needed. The bio intros say the popes are the head of the Catholic Church, so that makes Church = Catholic Church not required. IMHO See = Holy See is also redundant in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 8 November 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.

@Fieari: I've implemented your decision. Removing the Diocese & See from the infoboxes of all the popes. As for the Church? I've chosen to (re-)add it to the infoboxes of all the popes. If another editor removes the Church entry? I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Orvieto Papacy, etc

I came across this article recently; I’ve never heard of this term before (though I am familiar with the Avignon Papacy) and a google search for it failed to turn up anything other than copies of the WP article, while a book search turned up nothing at all. I can only assume this is (at best) a piece of original writing, or (at worst) an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. I also note we have a whole bunch of these time-specific papacies (listed on the Popes template), from the Ostrogothic to the Baroque. None of these show up in the Catholic Encyclopedia; Does anyone have any sources to corroborate this usage? Otherwise these articles need to be moved to descriptive, non-judgemental titles, such as "Papal residence at Orvieto", "Papacy in the Ostrogothic period" etc (as with the Revolutionary Papacy) Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Moonraker12, once St. Peter arrived in Rome, the only location where any person officially regarded as a Catholic pope has lived other than Rome is Avignon -- and that only during a time of papal exile due to political turmoil in Italy, 1309-1377 AD, which actually spanned the tenure of seven popes. The Western Schism saw the Roman Catholic Church split initially into two and subsequently three papal obediences that were more or less geographical, with the sees of those now deemed to have been antipopes being Avignon (1378-1417) and Pisa (1409-1417) before the Council of Constance restored unity. The other antipopes through the years did not typically have enough of a following to amount to much, but it's certainly plausible that one or another of them had a supposed see in Orvieto. There are also a handful of crackpots who have claimed that the Roman See was vacant after Vatican II because Paul VI and subsequent popes were not really popes for one reason or another, and that God has made special provision by elevating them to the papal office -- and yes, they run around in white cassocks and zucchettos, but I'm not aware of any of them having enough of a following to be relevant -- so it's certainly plausible that one or another of these has a supposed papal see in Orvieto. I'd check out what's going on before altering or removing anything. Norm1979 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's really what we are talking about. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Norm1979: No, the article itself is clear enough, it refers to a period in the 13th century (so, nothing to do with sedevacantism): My only question was whether anyone can corroborate the term (I can’t). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The Orvieto Papacy article seems fine, but the title should probably be changed. But not to "Papal residence at Orvieto", which sounds like an article on a building. That eg Baroque Papacy doesn't "show up in the Catholic Encyclopedia" is no sort of argument! That's only a redirect to an over-short section in "history of..." anyway. Medieval Rome was dominated by gangsterish noble families that the papacy struggled, and very often failed, to control, and was often downright unsafe for extended periods. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Fair enough; what title would you suggest? As for Baroque papacy, the only source I can find is this by Peter Tusor, from 2016 (which post-dates its use here); It doesn’t seem enough to be definitive. Are you saying we should keep these pages where they are? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Orvieto and the popes, Orvieto as a papal refuge perhaps. Baroque papacy is just a redirect, & harmless, even if there is little there. "Baroque popes" gives far better search results. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod & Moonraker12, are you all sure that Orvieto was a refuge for legitimate popes and not the see of an antipope of the period in question? Do either of you have citable references for that? Norm1979 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fairly - all the popes mentioned at the start of the article were legitimate, & there is no mention of Orvieto (unlike Pisa, Viterbo, Avignon, and many other places) in Antipope. You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about them frankly. Orvieto, in the Papal States, was a secure location fairly close to Rome, and a natural hangout in difficult times. "Because of its site on a high, steep bluff of tuff, a volcanic rock, the city was virtually impregnable", Orvieto says. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, no, I don't have a particular bee in my bonnet about antipopes. The information that I have on my fingertips on the subject gives places of birth for the antipopes for whom it's known, but says nothing about their sees. But we should ensure that our changes are defensible even if the existing content of an article seems not to be defensible. The earlier comments in this thread carried a pretty strong implication of uncertainty about the situation, implying a need for further investigation before making changes. Norm1979 (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Other than to the title, I don't see anyone proposing changes. The "see" of antipopes surely became Rome, at least in theory, and they seem to have been as mobile as the legitimate medieval popes, tending to spend time in Imperial territory. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, yes, most antipopes claimed the see of Roma (the notable exceptions being those of the Western Schism). But they would not have had access to the official papal residence and the Roman basilicas, so where did they actually set up shop? Norm1979 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Anywhere but Orvieto, apparently. I think some did control Rome in fact - Antipope Victor IV (1159–1164) for example, and several of the ones before 1000. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw, all popes and antipopes regarded themselve as bishops of Rome; I don't know why you except the antipopes of the Western Schism. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, none of the antipopes of the Western Schism ever attempted to establish residence in, or anywhere near, Rome. In the wake of the Avignon exile (1309-1377), some of the cardinals who elected Pope Urban VI on 08 April 1378 declared the election to be illegitimate and proceeded to elect Clement VII, who promptly set up shop at the vacated papal residence in Avignon. Many of those cardinals apparently were French, as that action actually split the Roman Catholic Church geographically into two separate bodies, each with its own pope -- one in communion with Rome and the other in communion with Avignon, each with its own College of Cardinals. The Avignon cardinals subsequently elected Benedict XIII to succeed Clement VII to the Avignon papal office in 1394.

In an attempt to bring this schism to an end, bishops in Pisa convoked a synod in 1409, with no authorization from either claimant to the papal office, that drew bishops and cardinals from both bodies. This synod purported to convict both Gregory XII (the Roman pope) and Benedict XIII of many charges of heresy and schism, depose both of them, and order the election of a new pope. The cardinals present in Pisa for this synod promptly elected Alexander V -- who remained in Pisa and reigned from there. Instead of unifying the church, however, this action created a third body with its own pope and cardinals. The Pisan College of Cardinals subsequently elected John XXIII to succeed Alexander V in 1410.

The Council of Constance (1414-1418) finally brought the schism to an end in 1417. Norm1979 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, but afaik anyone claiming to be pope by definition claimed to be Bishop of Rome, the two roles being effectively synonymous. The fact that many antipopes and legitimate popes never set foot in the city during their reigns is neither here nor there. Pope Clement V is a legitimate example. Btw, your opening assertion in this section "once St. Peter arrived in Rome, the only location where any person officially regarded as a Catholic pope has lived other than Rome is Avignon" is wrong; many popes, mostly medieval, have spent extended periods living elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've boldly moved this to Orvieto and the popes. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but @Johnbod: is correct. The anti-popes who lived in Avignon, did indeed claim to be Bishops of Rome. Indeed, being Bishop of Rome is what makes you Pope, not the other way around. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Would anyone be able to help fix the links to disambiguation pages which fall within the area of this wikiproject? Examples are at:

• Disambig fix list for Catholic catechism
• Disambig fix list for Catholic doctrine
• Disambig fix list for Polish Catholic

Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 16:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Anniversary of Pope Benedict XV's death

This January will mark the 100th anniversary of the death of Pope Benedict XV. He is well remembered in particular for his unsuccessful efforts to bring an end to the First World War. He is also the namesake of Benedict XVI. Not sure if there is any interest in doing anything to mark the ocassion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Liberation theology"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liberation theology#Missing_information_template_discussion, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Orthodox Catholic Church

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Orthodox Catholic, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments - honorifics for antipopes

@Ad Orientem, A. C. Santacruz, GoodDay, and Johnbod: I revently had a discussion throught revert-editing summaries with @LoopaMoopa: at David Bawden. LoopaMoopa argued that antipopes should have as honorific "Antipope" and stated it was the convention. Therefore, I decided to investigate.
I have checked the list of historical and modern antipopes at Antipope and noted my observations about honorifics for antipopes who have an infobox. Here are my observations, the popes with "(Pal.)" next to them are leaders of the Palmarian Catholic Church to show how inconsistent honorifics can be:

• the antipopes who have "Antipope" in their infobox: Antipope Felix II, Antipope Boniface VII, Antipope Clement VII, Antipope Benedict XIII, Antipope Alexander V, Antipope John XXIII, Antipope Clement VIII, Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, David Bawden, Manuel Corral (Pal.), Joseph Odermatt (Pal.)
• antipopes who do not have "Antipope" as honorific: Antipope John XVI, Antipope Clement III, Antipope Theodoric, Antipope Christopher, Antipope Adalbert, Antipope Sylvester IV, Antipope Gregory VIII, Antipope Anacletus II, Antipope Victor IV (1159–1164), Antipope Paschal III, Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (Pal).
• Ginés Jesús Hernández (Pal.) has "Former Antipope"

As we can see, there is no convention on this. Therefore, I think a consensus should be reached on what antipopes' honorifics should be.
As for me, I think only the latest honorific used for those popes within their denomination while they are in office, sourced within the article with proper RS, should be used, whatever they may be ("His Holiness", "His Greatness", "Mary's Great Fighter", "His Humbleness", etc.). Of course, this could be changed in some special cases, such as with Ginés Jesús Hernández who is not pope or even priest anymore. If ther is no honorifics properly sourced within the article, then no honorifics should be used. I believe "Antipope" is not a honorific, rather it is either the contrary - a pejorative term used by mainstream denominations - or a neutral qualificative used by historians. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
EDIT (I forgot this one):

• Lucian Pulvermacher: has "His Holiness" as honorific.

Veverve (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't taken a good look at the articles to have much opinion on what to do as convention, but I think the idea that antipope is an honorific seems somewhat illogical, as it is only used by their opponents or historians.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, antipope is an opponent's/ retrospective job title, not an honorific. For the antipopes within the Western Church, the word should be in the title, per WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have the honorifics deleted, since none of them were popes. Even though, they believe & believed themselves to be. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I think your proposal would heavily depend on POV; it is not up to WP to judge who is the legitimate leader of a denomination (see for example Abune Merkorios and Abune Paulos/Abune Mathias who each claimed to be the legitimate head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church during about 30 years, until 2018 when Merkorios and Mathias reconciled and became both co-Patriarchs), or who deserves to use such or such honorifics. Veverve (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the Catholic Church. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: we are, I simply tried to give a meaningful example from another denomination to make my point. Veverve (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Antipope" should be used consistently among the historical claimants to the papacy (prior to the Reformation). This list from the OCE is as good as any. The post-Vatican II individuals are irrelevant unless independently notable. Antipopes are notable for having posed a serious challenge to the seated pope, who in a few cases was ambiguous. I can think of no such challenge after the Reformation. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The anti-popes (Avignon & Pisan) of the Western Schism, were the only ones to have ever truly threatened the pope's status. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zfish118: so, do you think "Antipope" should be used as a honorific in the infoboxes? Veverve (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the articles already have "antipope" in the article title. The honorific in the infobox would provide some consistency for historical antipopes without the term in the title. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod & Zfish118, there are two separate issues here.

• The first issue is whether the title of "Antipope" should appear as an honorific in articles about the respective individuals. Here, it's important to realize that "Antipope" is not a formal title of any office, but rather a de facto role that several individuals assumed at various times in history. I'm not sure whether the Catholic Church has published an official list of individuals who falsely claimed the papal office or not, but I'm not persuaded that any articles should use the title of Antipope in the same way that articles about popes use the title of Pope.
• The second issue is that of consistency. I'm generally a very strong proponent of consistency, but there are situations in which blind insistence on consistency for consistency's sake does not sense. In particular, there are at least five antipopes who warrant special treatment.

1. Saint Hippolytus was later reconciled, and subsequently canonized after his death. He is the only canonized antipope.
2. The four "antipopes" of the Western Schism were actually popes of separated bodies during a period when the Roman Rite was split into two, and subsequently three, separate ecclesial communions, each of which had its own pope (hence the term "schism"...). None of these men were regarded as antipopes during their reign. It was only after the Council of Constance "deposed" the popes of the communions centered in Pisa and Avignon, while accepting the conditions demanded by the pope of the communion centered in Rome to secure his resignation under threat of deposition because that was basically the path of least resistance and thus the practical way forward, that papalists, arguing that an ecumenical council could not depose a pope, construed the actions of that council to give legitimacy to the popes of the Roman communion and illegitimacy to the popes of the communions centered on Avignon and Pisa. But, curiously, those same papalists argued that the first several sessions of the Council of Constance == one of which promulgated the decree Haec Sancta Synodus saying that even the pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council, once it's convened == even though the magisterium included the decrees of those sessions in a volume of all decrees of ecumenical councils provided to the participants in Vatican II, indicating that the magisterium regards those sessions as part of the legitimate Council of Constance. The bottom line is that the historical record of the Council of Constance does not match to the pretense of modern papalists.

So these five cases clearly warrant special consideration, and probably deviation from the standard format for antipopes.Norm1979 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The Avignon & Pisan anti-popes did have enough of a following (thus the Western Schism) to warrant being handled differently from other anti-popes. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any ambiguity within this issue, and including the honorific "antipope" is the simplest way to address the issue. These individuals may have been "pope" of some church, but not the Roman Catholic. Wikipedia does not need to "discern" correct leader, rather report what other sources represent to be the correct leader. None of the antipopes are reported by modern reliable sources as a pope of the Roman Catholic Church (if any sources do, it would be a minority opinion to be represented as such). Most of the individuals on this list are of note and interest to to modern audiences because they were antipopes. By what office they were known in their lifetime can be addressed in the body of the article, but it becomes cumbersome to try to represent this in the infobox. Therefore, the infobox documenting their purported reign should say "antipope". I'd further argue alternative terms to "papacy began" and "ended" within the infobox should be used (see Felix II as an example of incorrect use). –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Zfish118, let's remember that the present sui juris ritual churches of non-Roman rite had not returned to the full communion of the Catholic Church at the time of the Western Schism, so the Catholic Church was substantially what's now known as the Roman Catholic Church. I have not found any indication that any of the two, and subsequently three, papal obediences of the Western Schism ever regarded themselves as anything but the true Catholic Church. But see this map showing the alignment during period of two papal obediences to get an idea of the scope of the Western Schism. This situation was not exactly some irrelevant guys claiming to be popes, as was the case for the rest of the antipopes. Norm1979 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Norm1979: I don't wish to sound pedantic, but I having difficulty following this discussion as there are several different points under discussion that seem to be straying far from the specific issue of whether "antipope" should be used in the infobox. On that issue, my opinion remains that the term should be used as the honorific. I am uncertain what relevance the sui juris churches have on this issue; I am addressing to your statement that the "Roman Rite was split into two, and subsequently three, separate ecclesial communions". The notability of these individuals rests on their purported claim to the Roman papacy, and that subsequent church leaders denounced that claim. They may well have been the duly elected head of one of those schismatic bodies, and used the term "pope", but they were never the pope. The official list of popes does not included these individuals, and modern reliable sources do not list these individuals as popes. Their infobox should reflect their purported claim to the Roman papacy using the most common and recognizable term, "antipope". As applicable, the article should also note which branch of the schism they led. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Zfish118, the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on the use of the term "pope" in reference to its supreme bishop. The Coptic Church, for example, also uses this title -- and the Vatican recognizes this use, at least in the context of ecumenism (see, for example, the list of joint communications at http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-orientali/relazioni-bilaterali/patriarcato-copto-ortodosso-degitto/dichiarazioni-comuni.html on the Vatican's web site). So to say that the claimants to the papal office who resided in Avignon and Pisa were not in fact popes is fallacious. Rather, they were in fact popes of churches that were in a state of schism with the Roman pope and, once the Pisan papal obedience came into being, with each other -- and there's no problem with a schismatic body using the title of pope for its supreme bishop. Perhaps the fact that these schismatic bodies never identified themselves by a distinct name that would indicate the state of separation lends some confusion to the matter, but the fact remains that the Western Schism was a time when the Roman Catholic Church was split into two, and subsequently three, distinct ecclesial bodies, each with its own pope. And where the Council of Constance did not even attempt to recognize one papacy as legitimate and the other two as illegitimate, but rather treated all of them equally -- that council claimed authority to depose all three popes and then demanded their resignations under threat of deposition to clear the way for election of a new pope who would be accepted by all. The Roman pope offered his resignation on the condition that the council recognize the cardinals that he had appointed, while the other two refused to resign. The council then accepted the condition of the Roman pope's resignation, that being the path of least resistance, and followed through on its threat to depose the other two before ordering the College of Cardinals to convene and elect a new pope (Martin V). It seems pretty obvious that the Council would have accepted resignations under the same condition from either or both of the other popes.

What you call "modern reliable sources" generally reflect Papalist thinking that the pope is above an ecumenical council, and not subject to it, and that therefore must hold the first several sessions of the Council of Constance to be illegitimate. Why? Because the fifth session of that council promulgated the decree Haec sancta synodus which stated that even the pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council -- a position that the Papalists reject. But the problem with that rejection is that the edition of prior ecumenical councils that the magisterium provided to participants in Vatican II included all of the decrees of the early sessions of the Council of Constance, including Haec sancta synodus, with no mention whatsoever of doubt as to the ecumenical character of those sessions. And although the Papalist interpretation that the Roman popes constitute the true papal lineage, deeming the papacies of the other two bodies to be antipopes, did make its way into official publications, those publications do not have infallible character at all. I think that reinterpretation of events after the fact should be clearly identified as such, ideally with the history of when and how that reinterpretation took root. Norm1979 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have expressed my opinion on the matter of whether "antipope" should be used as an honorific, and my opinion remains "yes". I do not wish to engage in side discussions about unrelated matters. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added Lucian Pulvermacher which I had forgotten. Veverve (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here is one possible way of handling Western Schism anti-popes:

Antipope John XXIII Western Schism - Pisan claimant
Miniature from the Chronicle of the Council of Constance by Ulrich of Richenthal
Papacy began	1410
Papacy ended	1415
Predecessor	Alexander V
Opposed to	Roman claimant: Gregory XII Avignon claimant: Benedict XIII
Personal details
Born	c. 1365 Procida, Kingdom of Naples
Died	1419 (aged 53–54) Florence, Republic of Florence
Coat of arms
Other popes and antipopes named John

See sidebar with sample infobox for the Pisan claimant Benedict XIII –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• The sample infobox looks good to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A side note: I should point out, that in the past, some editors have gotten the Avignon Papacy confused with the anti-popes residing in Avignon. In recent weeks in some areas, I've had to untangle that confusion. The Avignon Papacy was the time period between 1309 & 1377, when the popes were residing in Avignon, rather the Rome. This was before the Western Schism occurred. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the sample sidebox too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD for Reformed Old Catholic Church

I have starded an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Old Catholic Church. Please come and give your insight! Veverve (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Pope Krav? - possible citogenesis, in need of help

The information that Mirko Krav Fabris is the first conclavist antipope was added to the article Conclavism in added 2008 without giving any source.
I have not found anything on this supposed antipope from Croatia apart from a reference from Chryssides (see below). The information on the standup.si website of "MIRKO FABRIS KRAV" does not match with someone who is born before 1978.
George Chryssides gives in his Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (2nd ed. from 2012) the name "Mirko Krav Fabis" (not "Fabris", but the book also has in the same entry "Joaquia Sánez y Arriga" which is a typo mistake for Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga so maybe "Fabis" is also a typo) as the first Conclavist antipope. However, I am afraid it may be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. The first edition of the book is from 2001, and after consulting this first edition on the Internet Archive, I see there is no "Conclavism" or "Conclavist" entry where they should be (p. 96-7), and after a digital OCR search inside the book I see there is no mention of "conclav", "Krav", "Fabris" or "Fabis".
Does any of you have any source from before 11 October 2008 stating this Mirko Krav Fabis/Mirko Krav Fabris claimed in any way to be pope? Veverve (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple print sources that I will review later today for any reference. My understanding is that we indeed have made up a pope. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: any breakthrough? Veverve (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No; after consulting several sources–including The Oxford Dictionary of Pope–and receiving research help from some clergy friends, I believe that this is citogenesis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comments - "Catholic (term)" to "History of Catholicity"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Revert to original for now. Discussion about the page name may continue on talk:Catholic (term). –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

The long standing article titled "Catholic (term)" was WP:Boldly moved to "History of Catholicity". I have concerns, as the article is largely about development and usage of the word "catholic" rather than history of catholic beliefs (ie catholicity). The page has has already been moved several times (here and here), so before things get muddy, I'd like a clear consensus to be developed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Zfish118 if this is an actual RfC please add the tag A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is quite a difference between the term Catholic and Catholicity, and so prefer the earlier name for the article. However, I'd appreciate if Heanor could provide some argument/sources for the move. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My main argument is that this article is about the history. But maybe History of the term "Catholic" is a better title? --Heanor (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That title seems more appropriate in this case. I'm not sure about the use of quotes within an article title, see WP:TSC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Revert to original There have been many debates over the years. The current status is the most stable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Revert to original Does not make sense to mix etymology with cultural history, atleast in my opinion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Zfish118, A. C. Santacruz, Laurel Lodged, CapnJackSp, I see now that I probably made a mistake, and the title 'History of Catholicity' is not a good one. But I'm a little confused now with the scopes of these articles. For example I see that in French wikipedia there are two diffrent articles with clearly defined scopes: fr:Catholicisme, which is about the religion of catholics, and fr:Catholicité, which is about a general notion of the universality of the Church, not only the Catholic Church, but also the Orthodox Churches and all other churches which accepts the Nicene Creed. --Heanor (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is correct, the term Catholic is not only used by the Roman Catholic Church. Welcome to the often confusing world of Christian religion articles, Heanor! It's certainly given me a headache quite a few times... A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Then you may want to have separate articles for the types of catholicity, but moving etymology to a history style title is probably not the best idea. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Improperly formatted and placed. First off, if the move is contentious, which it clearly is, the page should be returned to the status quo ante while discussion is underway. If discussion can't reach a resolution, this should be handled as a requested move, not an RfC. Since there's a specific process for contested moves, use of a more general one (RfC) doesn't make any sense. Regardless, the discussion should take place on the article talk page, not a WikiProject page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 25 January 2022 (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.

Proposed merge for Concordat of Worms

Please see Talk:Investiture Controversy#Second merge from Concordat of Worms. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Male-female and pro-gender variants of the site

I wanna inform about the draft Male-female and pro-gender variants of the site in the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Vatican City–related articles is nominated for deletion here

Index of Vatican City–related articles, a maintained high-importance WikiProject page viewed by hundreds and sometimes thousands of readers a day, is up for deletion mixed-in with 173 other pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)