Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2025

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Jimmy Wales has addressed the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences back in 2012

While searching in the Internet Artchive to improve this WP article, I sumbled upon this 2012 CNS article which tells how Jimmy Wales gave an address at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences where he had been invited.

I was unaware of it, and I found this information funny, so I am relaying it to you here. Veverve (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC concerning this WikiProject

An RfC on a topic that concerns this WikiProject has been opened at: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Request for comments: in cases of a large numbers of religious celebrations in a religious calendar (e.g., feast day of saints), can they all be listed in a non-list WP article? Veverve (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Diocese page titles

I am quite a bit annoyed by the unnecessarily long page titles such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris, etc. These should obviously be at Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archdiocese of Paris. Is there a guideline somewhere that prescribes this preemptive disambiguation? If so, why does it seemingly target only Catholic dioceses? Compare Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster with Diocese of Canterbury. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The Catholic Diocese of Rome is also without a prefix. The reason it's on most dioceses is consistency. It's the same for Anglican and Episcopal dioceses. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Consistency between which pages? These examples seem to point to an inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Other than the primary dioceses, that is, Rome and Canterbury, all dioceses have their denominational prefix.

I imagine that many years ago there was a discussion and consensus on this. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

But that is not correct. Check Category:Dioceses of the Church of England. The pages are titled Diocese of Oxford, Diocese of Chester, Diocese of Gloucester, and so on. The denominational prefix is exceptional. I would like to know if there is a guideline or a naming convention, and where the appropriate venue for a naming convention discussion would be. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I wonder what WikiProject Anglicanism thinks about that; per WP:RCC and other sources, the "Roman Catholic Diocese of..." convention is 18 years old, and was decided on for consistency among page names even for when there is not necessarily ambiguity. I think we'd need some massive consensus to change roughly 3000 page names. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I imagined that would be the reason. Interestingly, WP:CONSISTENT addresses this situation: we have Georgia (country) because of ambiguity, but we do not have Spain (country) for consistency with Georgia (country). Apparently, the Anglican dioceses do not need these appendages while the Catholic diocese pages have unnecessarily long and unnecessarily complicated names. We should discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Philadelphia, there is both a Roman/Latin Rite Catholic jurisdiction along with a Ukrainian Catholic one. Dcheney (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, no, there's only one Archdiocese of Philadelphia, as there's a Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia. I'm firmly for DarthStabro's proposal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The proposal to discuss this with WikiProject Anglicanism as well, Pbritti? Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant to add you. We should have consistency, and your proposal is wise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Providence College

Providence College has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Antiqua et Nova

I just created Antiqua et Nova which was just issued by the Vatican. It addresses "the anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI." Thriley (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Cucchiara

This stub has been tagged as unreferenced for 15 years. I'm not clear as to why this priest was notable. Is he a servant of God? Bearian (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: I'm getting good hits searching the Chinese version of his name. There's a hospital named for him Hong Kong and it looks like he's pretty well-documented for his mission activity there. CCing Uriel1022 to ask if there's enough to establish notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Can one of you please add in those sources? Bearian (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: @Pbritti: Let me do some digging. Uriel1022 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I see the work. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 5 February 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)

WikiProject Catholicism Discord server

For greater collaboration: https://discord.gg/bAqTPgCBec ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:47, 18 February 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. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 22 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pope Leo article disputes

Hi Folks,

The Pope Leo XIV article is suffering from multiple active disputes, which are all, IMHO, exceedingly trivial, and they have festered into edit war territory now. I am unsure whether appealing to this notice board will engender any resolutions, but as we say, if competent, seasoned editors can direct more eyes and watchlists thataway, it may eventually help to put a lid on things.

Thankfully, in this Year of Hope 2025, I recall how our Pope Francis article eventually became stabilized and uncontroversial. I hope that we can achieve a similar result here and now. 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:23BA:E2E6:8269:3B50 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC) IP range 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for block evasion of User:Elizium23.

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)

@GGOTCC, congratulations on your WP:DYK, currently on WP:Main Page! @Dahn writes: This article is a nice break from all the trite promotional articles about vapid and terminally online celebrities. Impressive! 2600:8800:1E8F:BE00:B3B1:93FA:7153:FC17 (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! GGOTCC 04:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Rename proposal for early patriarchs of Alexandria

The proposal is to remove "pope" from article titles of patriarchs of Alexandria for the period before the 536 schism (i.e. before the present Coptic Orthodox Church was established), and replace it with "patriarch". This is meant to reconcile the contradiction between MOS:POPES and MOS:PATRI, amongst other things. See discussion here. NLeeuw (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Year of three popes

The article Year of three popes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:SYNTH: the only reliable source using the term "Year of the Three Popes" refers to a specific year, 1978, all other years listed in this article are verified by a reference to encyclopedic articles about individual popes. Wikipedia:Notability: no reliable sources are cited to verify that the topic is notable; a book about a specific year cannot verify the existence of an article about multiple years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Colegio San José, Arequipa#Requested move 23 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Colegio San José, Arequipa#Requested move 23 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Clemente Domínguez y Gómez

This person is not mention as even a minor antipope at Antipope. He is listed in the appropriate template Template_talk:Western_Schism (talk page shown due to request) and categories. BTW, is he really a Christian Saint as he's in that category also. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

He is considered a "saint" by the Palmarian Catholic Church (whose first "pope" he was). I don't know whether that means that he should be listed in the category or not, but I suspect not. Long is the way (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Stale category discussion needs follow-up

copied from WP:CFDS

• Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington to Category:Diocese of Arlington per C2D. Following discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2025#RfC on dropping preemptive disambiguation, articles on diocese and archdiocese have had the preemptive disambiguator "Roman Catholic" removed. To match this, the relevant categories will need to be renamed. There are several hundred of these, and I don't know how to list all of them. A mostly complete list can be accessed via Category:Roman Catholic dioceses. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Pbritti: I am not against it, but it should be done collectively. Doing this for one category only does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Diocese renaming

I can see that there was a discussion with agreement to move Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark to Archdiocese of Southwark. I think this was wrong as it looks like the Anglican diocese now. Our article is called Anglican Diocese of Southwark but they call themselves Diocese of Southwark. Anglican cathedral is Southwark Cathedral and RC is St George's Cathedral. The Archdiocese's website is at https://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/ and they use RCAOS for email. Generally it always seems to have RC in its name, somewhere. Secretlondon (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Call for participation

Be free to include 2025 Jubilee holy places of plenary indulgence in your diocese, country etc. in the List of 2025 Jubilee churches. Let's fill in the list! Pax et Bonum! Grišnik (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added some of the many ones in England and Wales. I think this will end up a very long page if we add every jubilee church in the world. Secretlondon (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bartholomew the Apostle#Requested move 27 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bartholomew the Apostle#Requested move 27 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cacophonic peace (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Catholic Church and artificial intelligence

I recently created Draft:Catholic Church and artificial intelligence. I am going to try to get it into main space in the next few weeks. Would appreciate any assistance! Best, Thriley (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a very early draft. There has been lots of commentary on Leo's naming being about artificial intelligence. Secretlondon (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for posting such an incomplete draft. Thought I’d share it as Leo was just named by Time Magazine to the TIME100 AI 2025. While the Time list doesn’t really mean much, there’s clearly an overwhelming amount of material to use to build an extensive article. I’m not deeply proficient in church doctrine so I thought to ask this project to see if there’s interest. Thriley (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on draft: Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

Hello WikiProject members,

I am currently working on the draft article Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites, about a Roman Catholic women’s religious institute founded in Kerala in the 19th century.

The draft is structured with sections on *History*, *Charism and Apostolate*, and *Legacy of Mother Eliswa*. I have added references, but some are church-related sources, and I am working on expanding with more independent ones.

Before it goes through the Articles for Creation review queue (which may take some time), I would greatly appreciate any feedback from editors here regarding:

• Article neutrality and tone
• Whether the structure and headings seem appropriate

Suggestions for reliable independent sources I may have missed are especially welcome. Any advice to improve the draft before formal review would be much appreciated. Thank you! Desertstorm1000 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to use inline citation WP:IC in the article?  Spes  12:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue looks like sourcing - is there more written about them, it doesn't have to be in English. Secretlondon (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There's more info on their own website - including that they split into two. I would make more of the fact that they were the first indigenous order of women in Kerala. Secretlondon (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Jesuit missions

This has been unsourced for 11 years. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a one sentence dictionary definition. I'm not sure it could be turned into an article. Secretlondon (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Arms of American dioceses

I'm going to undertake adding the official heraldric blazons and descriptions of arms to all American dioceses that I can find the information for; Much of the information can be found in The American Ecclesiastical Review, which can be found on Google Books, if anyone wants to help. You can see how I've done this so far at Diocese of Boise, Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and Archdiocese of Seattle. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Melchior2006: I am unfamiliar with any MOS policy forbidding a template that is used across thousands of articles simply because it is "too large". The box contains information that cannot, and should not, be included in the infobox but doesn't really work well in a prose paragraph either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Darth Stabro, you have added a lot of big graphics which are redundant because we already have the arms in the info boxes of each article. I think most would agree that having the same graphic twice is unnecessary. And yes, "simply because it is too large" is a valid reason to change something on a Wikipedia page. If you want to describe the arms, that is a very technical matter with questionable relevance for an enyclopedia. Still, I could image including an arms description section on this page, but just as text, not as repeated pictures. Have you talked to other editors about this? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I request that you wait with further edits like your recent ones, until other editors have joined the discussion and we have reached a consensus. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how having the blazon and description of symbols is too technical with questionable relevance. The description especially is precisely something that someone might be curious about when they see the arms. It doesn't work well in prose format, however, and there is a template that perfectly meets the purpose that is used across 4,300+ pages for people, companies, universities, cities, etc, and many dioceses that I didn't add them to - several dozen, actually. Cf. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Emblem table. It's not something I started doing with no precedent. If some strong consensus develops that they should be removed then sure, but their existence in many articles and dioceses is not something I came up with. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. You have here many good examples, Darth Stabro! Thank you for starting this, and thanks to both of you for shining a light on this topic... it might be a bit large, but it looks like wiki loves it.  Spes  15:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

One concern I would have is that the AER versions may not be up to date. Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro I would also suggest that the box with the coat of arms be put lower down in the article, probably just before "see also" as it is much less important than e.g. who the bishops of the diocese have been. Jahaza (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just want to check in and say I agree with Darth Stabro and Jahaza, I think we have reached consensus on the blazon and description of symbols being important. While it is true that there is a certain doubling going on here, I think that is ok as long as the blazon and description appear pretty much at the end of the page. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

"Review Request: Draft on Congregation of Teresian Carmelites."

Hello, I have been working on a draft for the Congregation of Teresian Carmelites and would appreciate it if a member of the WikiProject could review it. I believe the draft meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article and would like to get it published. Any feedback on how to improve it would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Desertstorm1000 (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

please link to it so we can find it more easily. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! Here is the link to the draft: Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites I appreciate your help with the review. Desertstorm1000 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! Here is the link to the draft:

Draft:Congregation of Teresian Carmelites

I appreciate your help with the review.

Desertstorm1000 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

"See also" clutter on many Catholic pages

Discussion around this article on a bishop raises the question of "see also" clutter. A lot of Catholicism pages have these sections which are basically redundant. The categories at the end of the article are sufficient for those seeking further references. Of course, "see also" sections can be relevant, but there is a lot of overkill out there. I welcome other opinions and constructive arguments. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, seems like overkill to me. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't recall who, but a much better editor than myself once said that "see also" sections ought to be safe, rare, and legal. A single link to an index page is perhaps all that's necessary on bishop articles. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That's strange, I wouldn't put most of those articles in the "See Also" section for Ralph Bernard O'Donnell. Maybe just List of Catholic bishops of the United States.

It might be helpful to review MOS:SEEALSO. I would have thought a link to Diocese of Jefferson City would fit well in the "See Also," but MOS:NOTSEEALSO says that links used in the article shouldn't be repeated. Jahaza (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes I'm the one who puts in the See also section on the bishops pages. This is my explanation:

If you wanted to find out all the current US bishops appointed by Pope Francis, then look it up in the Category:Bishops appointed by Pope Francis and thumb your way across all 669 pages. Same hold true for Pope John Paul II, Category:Bishops appointed by Pope John Paul II(727 pages) and Pope Leo XIV, Category:Bishops appointed by Pope Leo XIV(22 pages so far). Or you can look at the List of Catholic bishops in the United States which would be a lot quicker. Same hold true if you wanted to see all the bishops of the US from its founding as a nation, Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States. That's why they are in the See also section. More info to expand the mind for those who want to learn. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Understand now? Roberto221 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The categories are sufficient in most cases. You say as much in your post. "See also" is often redundant. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Roberto221 is having trouble accepting the consensus we have established so far. His repeatedly re-inserting long lists of "see also" after they have been removed is edit-warring behavior. He does not seem willing to participate in talk. How to proceed? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Try a message on his talk page. Secretlondon (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

that was the first step. The conflict is beyond that by now... -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think framing it as edit warring is unhelpful. Some of the links we need to make sure are in the body of the article. If something is in the body of the article then it should not also be in see also. Secretlondon (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Reverting edits that have been made according to consensus is edit warring. As for the see also question: Have you looked at MOS:SEEALSO? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes this "see also" is clutter and out of keeping with the spirit of "see also". There are all sorts of things that a user "might want to see" that we don't spoonfeed them. The fact that the same group of links is being added to many bios gives you a clue that these links are generic rather than geared to the subject of the bio. They often serve as padding to fill out bios of people who are rarely mentioned in secular sources and whose notability is questionable. (A subject for another discussion, I know.) If properly organized, this set of links might make for a decent footer template: Catholic Church hierarchy in the US or some such. Rutsq (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

See also is displayed on mobile, while footer templates and categories are not, so neither can replace the properly utilized "See Also". Jahaza (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, there is no requirement that sources be "secular" as much as some would like there to be, merely that they be reliable and independent. Jahaza (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

François David

This article about a Catholic bishop has been tagged as unsourced for almost 15 years. It was proposed for deletion, but I de-prodded it. As you may know, this is just a short delay. Please add reliable sources as soon as possible, as in this week. There is an Egyptian Arabic language article that appears to have about 7 references. That is a start. Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of the links on the Arabic article go to Catholic hierarchy, not really good enough. Secretlondon (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

CH is the New York Daily News of religious sources – not the best, but sometimes all you've got. Bearian (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the newspaper but I've found he's also Francis Daoud, which might help with finding sources. Secretlondon (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

For context: the New York Times is the newspaper of record, and the New York Post is the tabloid owned by the Murdoch family, while the Daily News is in between in quality. Bearian (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Catholic-Hierarchy.org says no. Secretlondon (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Just file it for future inspection. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel like pbritti might have sources on this guy based on prior conversations. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I've started a search but as of right now I've discovered that he may have a tendency to appear in questionably reliable sources due to his association with a particular and unusual apostolic succession. More to come hopefully. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking forward to finding out the 'unusual' part.  Spes  01:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lacessori: Still haven't found an RS that mentions this, but Thuc-line bishops claim that their succession goes through David and that the presence of David as a co-consecrator to a Latin bishop in Thuc's succession nullifies an issue associated with most other Catholic successions, which go through a Cardinal Rebiba that nobody knows the consecrator of. Again, no RSs for that, but an angle I may try to attack when I have the time. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it! See . It was in the Catholic Encyclopedia all along, albeit in a supplement and only found because of the Latin name of the diocese. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yay thank you! Secretlondon (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Our Lady of the Pillar of Imus

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I havent been able to find any sources outside the Diocesan website. Any pointers on where to look? Absadah (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure of WP:N here? I'm not sure if there's a discrete set of criterion for Marian titles but in looking across a number of source hosts (Jstor, Archive.org, university library EBSCO search, Newspapers.com), I see absolutely no mention of this title. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I've done a bit. The diocesan website also mirrors our content, which isn't helpful. The article needs work as it confuses the Augustinian recollects and the Franciscan recollects. According to Our Lady of the Pillar she is the patron of lots of places in the Philippines, including Imus Cathedral. Perhaps it could be merged into the article on the cathedral. Secretlondon (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, "Our Lady of the Pillar of Imus" is not a Marian title, but only one particular image of Our Lady of the Pillar (albeit a canonically crowned one). The entire background section has nothing to do with either. I think it would make sense to merge the information about the image into the article on the Cathedral housing the image. Long is the way (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think so. I think we should merge it into the article on the cathedral. Secretlondon (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Diocese of Keningau

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I threw one in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Visit by Pope Leo XIV to Turkey and Lebanon

Please add sources and flesh out as you're able. Maximilian775 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Srijem#Requested move 3 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Srijem#Requested move 3 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of St. John Chaldean Catholic Church

The article St. John Chaldean Catholic Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Little secondary and notable sourcing to bolster the article with additional citations

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've tried using Google and couldn't find very much. Secretlondon (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried looking on archive.org or any of the sources availible on The Wikipedia Library? Maximilian775 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No I haven't. It does seem to be fairly unremarkable church though. Dedicated in 2017. Secretlondon (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable, but I thought you folks should know that another user nominated it. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - we appreciate it. Secretlondon (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: your PROD notices are always greatly appreciated. I concur that there's unlikely enough available to save this article. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Banja Luka#Requested move 31 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Banja Luka#Requested move 31 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1130 papal election

1130 papal election has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Divine Word Academy of Dagupan

Please add reliable sources. I have been sourcing a number of Catholic-related articles. Bearian (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Vietnamese Catholic Lunar New Year (Tét)

Hi there I wanted to cover how Vietnamese culture and the Catholic faith blend together. This is Especially important to me and for removed communities or younger generations who are more unfamiliar with their significance in the Viet-Catholic community. I would love to see pages on other countries or cultures too if they have special masses or formularies approved by the church. I would love getting help since this is my first time doing wiki stuff.

Donjadao (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

also could someone help me update the title of my draft to reflect the correct accent marks from Tét to Tết? Donjadao (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

St. Anne's Church, Chennai

I'm afraid that we have two choices: send this to AFD, or add reliable sources. Let's do something about it. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good candidate for AfD. I'll take care of the nomination. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Conversation (Catholicism)

Project members may wish to comment. The wikiproject banner marks this as "high importance" for your project... Not familiar with the topic so no opinion myself on this topic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find much on this, from a trivial search. I doubt this is high importance. Secretlondon (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Non-Diocesan entities in Diocesan infoboxes

Is there an existing consensus as to whether non-diocesan/religious-order institutions should be in diocesan infoboxes? I think it's uncontroversial that the Diocese of Covington's infobox contains links to Thomas More College and Bishop Brossart High School, as both institutions are administered by the Covington diocese. The question is whether religious-order institutions, IE Our Lady of the Ozarks College, should be included in the template of the diocese in which they are located, (in the case of OLOC, the Diocese of Springfield–Cape Girardeau. Maximilian775 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think if a jurisdiction's ordinary can exercise ordinary authority over an institution, then yes. If the ordinary authority belongs to some else, no. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested Move discussion relevant for the project

Please consider hopping over and taking a look: Talk:Papal inauguration of Pope Leo XIV#Requested move 21 December 2025 ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

List of bishops, prince-bishops and archbishops of Strasbourg

This article has been unsourced for almost 20 years. I would appreciate editors from this project assisting in adding references. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)