Talk:Abstemius

Abstemius is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Catholic canon law task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability?

@Elizium23: @Omnipaedista: what do you think about this article? As foe me, it is a mix of unsourced material and material already present in the Catholic encyclopedia. I am thinking about proposing the article's deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, hmmmmm... does the term still exist in Canon Law 1983? I would say that the modern analogue to this is a priest who is alcoholic and must make use of must in his consecration. I do not know how the concession of must was handled in earlier times, but the topic is handled in the article I linked.

So is this a notable topic today? I guess if it were notable 100 years ago then it still is notable today. But it is very niche, in a corner, disused, I am on the fence about whether it deserves an article.

Also, Veverve, where do you FIND these things?? Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the current 1983 law on irregularity. As you can see, many many irregularities have been abolished or minimized. Abstemius would need to be treated as a completely historical curiosity. Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Thanks for your feedback. What do you recommend, then? If I removed everything which is unsourced, we are left with only the Catholic encyclopedia definition, which means the WP article might as weel be deleted at it would be redundant. Therefore, I believe the article has to be either expanded with the 1917 and 1983 canon laws, or deleted.

As for how I find those articles, I have renamed numerous pages related to canon law. E.g. the Catholic concept of approbation had its acticle simply called "Approbation" for 14 years, with the results one might expect: the hyperlink was used most of the time to link to the general concept of approbation and not to the Catholic canon law concept. I am also forced to change all the hyperlinks to "Interdicts" manually, because I moved the page to Interdict (Catholic canon law); by the way, any help is welcom for this one. Hence why I am wandering among obscure Catholic pages. Veverve (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the assessment that this topic should be treated as a "completely historical curiosity." Very few, if any, 20th-/21st-century sources even mention this term. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that we flag down anyone with access to the Commentaries for 1983 and 1917 Codes, and this may at least give us a blurb to start from. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: I believe @CanonLawJunkie: does have such ressources. Veverve (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]