Jump to content

Talk:David Bonnar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diocesan affiliation

[edit]

Bonnar is currently incardinated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. This is what goes in the Infobox. When he is installed at Youngstown then we will update that to the Diocese of Youngstown (Cincinnati has little to do with his suffragan diocese and we have been removing them from infoboxes, because it is confusing.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Wrong. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Youngstown is a suffragan diocese of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati. It is part of the ecclesiastical province of Cincinnati. So it has everything to do with his suffragan diocese. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom6132, it matters not, because it is useless to put it in the Infobox of a bishop, and we have consensus to remove them everywhere. Also, notability is conferred by the fact that he has been the subject of converage by multiple articles in the media, not by his title. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Show me your so-called "consensus". Your words ring hollow otherwise. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: See criteria #1 in WP:NCATHOLIC. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would've created an article on him if he had not been appointed bishop? He had "coverage by multiple articles in the media" before his appointment … —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Still waiting for you to show me the "consensus to remove them everywhere". I highly doubt it exists. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom6132, I would share the indicators with you, but I am skeptical that you know what consensus is. Could you define it and describe how it works? Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: "I am skeptical that you know what consensus is" – right, that's how I got 9 featured lists promoted and 136 ITN articles posted to the Main Page this year alone. By not knowing what consensus is. I was asking for proof, not "indicators". It's becoming quite apparent that you don't have any. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom6132, NCATHOLIC is an essay and has no status here. (I don't think you've actually read it anyway.) WP:GNG (and NCATHOLIC#1, for that matter) is only satisfied by significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources, which is what Bonnar has. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: "I don't think you've actually read it anyway" – wrong again. And you conveniently chose not to answer my reasonable question. Not surprised though. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Bloom6132: Just to set the record straight, I was part of that consensus that @Elizium23: talks about. A priest/bishop is still a priest/bishop of whatever diocese/archdiocese he hails from until he has his Mass of Consecration/Installation, which in this case is January 12, 2021. Therefore, he still is a priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. We don't use both the "Archdiocese" and "Diocese" parameter at the same time because it causes confusion, ergo, it appears that he is bishop of both the Archdiocese and Diocese when clearly he is not. We've never used the "Province" parameter, just the "Archdiocese" one. If you want to see an example, look at the next bishop to be consecrated, William Draper Byrne. As you can see, there is a lot of information which is commented out which will be uncommented, with some deletions, on the day of his consecration. As the previous conversations we've had before, yes it is nice that you have your articles featured but I've been creating Bishops' pages for over 5 years so at last count, I'm up over 60+.
Also, I've noticed that you added his picture. It's the same one that's on the Diocese of Pittsburgh website [1]. So unless you have permission from the diocese, that's a copyright violation and the wiki "police" will be deleting it. Just Saying...

Roberto221 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roberto221: "I've noticed that you added his picture" – wrong, that was added by Joesom333 with this edit (and he was the one who uploaded it, not me). What diff were you noticing? I know you and Elizium23 like to believe that a two-user tandem equals consensus, when it does not. But spuriously attributing edits to me – I've never seen anything like that. Just saying … —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: The article was created recently (17 November) and is long enough (c. 2,600 characters). No evidence of Copyvio, written in a neutral fashion and sourced reliably (though with an emphasis on church-affiliated publications). Hook is short enough, quite interesting and backed up by sources in the article. QPQ confirmed. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bishop" not "prelate"

[edit]

Contrary to what was claimed in this edit summary, the term "bishop" is the standard wording here on WP for clergy who are in charge of dioceses. It is used to disambiguate article titles per WP:BISHOP. The use of "prelate" is both confusing and incorrect, because Bonnar does not head a territorial prelature, nor is he the ordinary of a personal ordinariate (e.g. Keith Newton (prelate)). —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on Bonnar

[edit]

Hello, why did you feel it necessary to reverse my good faith edits? Rogermx (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rogermx: as I said in my edit summary, your good faith edits turned the text into WP:PROSELINE: "proseline tends to degrade the quality of the articles in which they reside by interrupting the natural flow with unnecessarily choppy sentences and paragraphs". —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to revert an entire article. A series of events in a person's life is a timeline. It does not serve the reader by having these events glopped together into long sentences. Also, reversion is meant as a last resort. The proper Wikipedia way is to revise the article to fix problems. I would have had no objection to your changing the sentences or anything else in the article. However, by reverting the entire article, you wiped out the dates that I added along with other important details on his background, along with a referenced sentence I added about vaccine mandates. 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Rogermx: I disagree. You claimed in your edit summary that your changes were merely "copy edit[s]", which is supposed to improve readability. Yet, your edits have worsened readability by placing the dates and years at the front. Notice how all the "paragraphs" created under the "Presbyteral ministry" section are only two sentences long (i.e. evidently "interrupting the natural flow with unnecessarily choppy sentences and paragraphs"). WP:TIMELINE plainly states that "[t]imelines in paragraph format (proselines) are not recommended." Proseline has been used as a reason to reject articles from WP processes such as In the News and good article (which should be the goal for every article). Lastly, a reminder that this article is a biography of a living person, not a timeline of some event. However, feel free to attempt to create a Timeline of David Bonnar article if you so choose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read the blurb at the top of proseline? This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
      • In other word, this is NOT Wikipedia policy, so please stop representing it as such. It was designed to ferret out articles in which editors are trying to beat each other to the punch with content. That is why they mention dates at the beginning of sentences, not because they are intrinsically wrong or interrupt the "natural flow", whatever the hell that is. There also is nothing intrinsically wrong with two-sentence paragraphs if they represent a distinct thought or action or time period. My paragraphs were much more readable that the meandering, sloppy ones that they replaced. Again, you were welcome to change anything you wanted in this article, but you chose to go against Wikipedia policy to avoid reversions on good faith articles. That is all I have to say or do on this matter. Have a good day. Rogermx (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rogermx: Of course I read it. And contrary to what you claimed, I never tried representing it as a WP policy or guideline. A bit of good faith on your part (that's a guideline, by the way) and less shouting is in order. MOS:PARA (another guideline, for your info) stipulates that "[t]he number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". Its explanatory supplement (WP:PARAGRAPH) affirms that "[o]ne-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly". It would seem to be gaming the system if one were to claim two sentences were an improvement over one. Your claim that "my paragraphs were much more readable that the meandering, sloppy ones that they replaced" is merely your opinion (however ill-informed it may be) that is not backed up by consensus. Contrary to what you claim (again), there is no WP policy that states that editors are to "avoid reversions on good faith articles" (whatever the hell that means). I see that you have not been involved in any of the WP quality processes (e.g. good articles, featured lists and articles, etc.), so I will not be taking any advice on quality writing from you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Bonnar&oldid=1217235977"