Talk:General Roman Calendar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

MOS:HON

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.

---

@Elizium23: I reverted your recent restoration to a previous revision because it had resulted in the undoing of multiple edits, and the deletion of most of the Cistercian section. But I do want to talk about the issue of MOS:HON, which reads in part, "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article." The titles of "Saint" and "Blessed" are used in the liturgical calendar itself, and are not being used here in Wikipedia's own voice. These titles are not merely stylistic content in this context, as the titles have a bearing with regard to the celebration of the liturgy. If the titles are removed, then this article would not be representing the General Roman Calendar accurately. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy, yeah we can't use those titles. You're free to add the rest of the updates, but I spent a lot of time taking out the titles per the guidelines. Elizium23 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"We" are not using the titles; the General Roman Calendar is using those titles, and we are reporting the contents of the General Roman Calendar. (When I say "General Roman Calendar," I refer also to its local variants.) In a liturgical context, these titles are part of the content of the calendar, and they have a functional purpose in the liturgy. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy, Wikipedia does not use those titles, and they do not belong in articles documenting whatever. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: It's certainly appropriate to say that "the Roman Catholic Church calls these people 'Saint' and 'Blessed' on their liturgical calendar." That's what's happening here. MOS:HON applies to "Wikipedia's own voice." Here it's not Wikipedia's voice; it's the Catholic Church's. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy, this article is not the Catholic Church's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: As I mentioned above, "Saint" and "Blessed" are not honorary extras in this context; they affect the scope of the liturgical cultus and refer to the way in which the saint is referenced in the liturgy. Within the context of the calendar, they are titles which convey meaning for that context; they are not stylistic additions here. The article is reporting the contents of a calendar which includes these titles on the calendar. I am trying to apply MOS:HON as it is written: if it's Wikipedia's voice, remove the titles (apart from the noted exceptions); but if Wikipedia is reporting on the way that particular people are viewed in a particular non-neutral context, then titles are appropriate. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy and Elizium23, Whoa, slow down! Let's take this one step at a time.

• First, let's clarify our terminology. The "General Roman Calendar" is the calendar propagated by the pope for the whole Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, AKA the Latin Church. A nation or region, a diocese, a community of a religious order, or even a parish may also have a proper calendar that modifies the contents of the general calendar, most commonly by adding celebrations that don't appear in the general calendar or by elevating the rank of celebrations that appear in the general calendar that, for one reason or another, are of particular importance to that region or community. A proper calendar also may transfer a celebration that's of great importance to another day so the faithful can participate more readily.
• Second, the article should replicate the listing of each celebration exactly as it appears in the official listing of the respective calendar because that is the official usage, and not a stylistic choice.
• But, third, when I go to the calendars printed in the edition of the Liturgy of the Hours for the dioceses of the United States, which is an official liturgical book, the word "Saint" does not appear anywhere. Rather, the listing for tomorrow (11 June) says "Barnabas, apostle" followed by "Memorial" with no mention of his status as a canonized saint.

Thus, I conclude that the article should follow the style that Elizium23 advocates because that's what appears in the official document. Norm1979 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why the usage in the global calendar would not be "official" given that this article is about the global calendar? Moreover, this argument is problematic because it refers to the US calendar. What if "saint" is used in the UK or (the equivalent in Italian) in Italy? In my view, we must go to the spirit of the rule. I can see that adding "saint" systematically in the biography of a person feels not neutral, because the individual exists independently of this title and insisting on this aspect of the person creates a form of undue weight. Here, there is no undue use of "saint" for any particular individual and, adding to this the convincing case made by Jdcompguy, I don't feel that the spirit of the rule is being violated. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norm1979: In the General Roman Calendar—which is published as part of the Roman Missal—the titles "Saint" and "Blessed" are indeed used. This is true in all the copies of the Roman Missal that I have checked: Latin 1962, Latin 2005, English U.S., English U.K., and Spanish. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers and Jdcompguy, the assertion that what appears in the official liturgical books for the United States is the U. S. calendar is not correct. Volume I of the Liturgy of the Hours contains the General Calendar of the Roman Rite on pages 105-116 (one calendar month on each page) and the Proper Calendar for the Dioceses of the United States on Page 117. Volumes II, III, and IV contain the General Calendar of the Roman Rite on pages 17-28 and the Proper Calendar for the Dioceses of the United States on page 29 (the difference arising because the official decrees promulgating the rite and the General Instructions of the Liturgy of the Hours precede the calendar pages in Volume I).

That said, I referenced the Liturgy of the Hours in the earlier comment only because it was what I had at hand at that time. Digging further, I found that the 1975 edition of the Roman Missal ("Sacramentary") followed the same style as the calendars in the Liturgy of the Hours but that the 2011 edition of the Roman Missal includes the title of "Blessed" or "Saint" for each feast. My guess is that the revision of the Liturgy of the Hours that's now in process will conform to the style of the 2011 edition of the Roman Missal when it appears.

A priori, I would favor migration to the style of the most recent official sources. However, that may be a losing battle in the politics of this community. Since both styles have appeared in official liturgical books, it clearly is not a battle that would be worth getting yourself suspended or kicked off of the site, which probably will happen if you become obstinate in crossing the wrong person. Thus, I would drop it for now. Norm1979 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope that I misinterpret what is being said here and that no one will be kicked off the site simply to have defended a position in a RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would not expect Wikipedia to "cancel" anyone for discussion of an issue on this page or on similar pages, but persisting in an edit war against the Powers That Be could provoke that. Norm1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norm1979: The opening of your reply says that my assertion is "not correct," but you cite an assertion I never made. Perhaps you meant to reply to Dominic Mayers? In any case, I'm glad we have come to an agreement that the "Saint" and "Blessed" titles are appropriate. Jdcompguy (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction! I missed the fact that the preceding paragraphs were two different replies, but I fixed my earlier comment. Norm1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy, in the General Roman Calendar published in my copy of Christian Prayer: The Liturgy of the Hours, ISBN 978-0-89942-407-1, the headings read, e.g. p. 27:

• Romuald, abbot
• Aloysius Gonzaga, religious
• Paulinus of Nola, bishop
• John Fisher, bishop and martyr, and Thomas More, martyr
• BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

pp. 1169-1172:

• ROMUALD, ABBOT
• ALOYSIUS GONZAGA, RELIGIOUS
• PAULINUS OF NOLA, BISHOP
• JOHN FISHER, BISHOP AND MARTYR, AND THOMAS MORE, MARTYR
• BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the 1970s edition of Christian Prayer to which you refer, there were no "Blessed" persons on the calendar. "Saint" applied to all of them and so it wasn't printed for each, as it was implied. This changed in the more recent liturgical books cited above. This article is about the General Roman Calendar as it currently exists, not as it existed back in the 1970s. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Jdcompguy, there are no blesseds on the General Roman Calendar now. By definition, this cannot be. Canonized saints are specifically elevated to universal veneration, whereas beatification means that the person may be venerated locally, by certain communities, etc.

  This article has actually expanded its scope beyond the General and into the Local calendars. The calendars of religious institutes are not General and they are not Roman. The calendars of regions such as the Philippines are not General and they certainly aren't Roman, doesn't that make sense? Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• As I have stated elsewhere, when I say "General Roman Calendar," I am referring to it together with its local variants. The point still stands that the most recent published edition of the General Roman Calendar (in the 2004/2005 Latin Roman Missal) has the title before every entry, even though there are no Blesseds on that calendar either. This article is about the latest version of the calendar. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy, there seems to be some confusion of terminology here. The General Roman Calendar does NOT have local variants. There is only ONE General Roman Calendar, which applies in its entirety to the whole Roman Rite (Latin Church). However, nation or region, diocese, parish, or religious order may have a proper calendar that contains additional celebrations, raises some celebrations in the general calendar to higher rank, and/or transfers some celebrations in the general calendar to a different day so the faithful can take part more readily. I would suggest that an article on the General Roman Calendar should stick to that subject. Norm1979 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, That makes absolute sense. Christian Prayer (single volume) acually is a condensed form of the full Liturgy of the Hours (four volumes), so one would expect the same usage in both. Norm1979 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Norm1979, it's standard that the scope of an article covers subtopics that are related. In this case, it's perfectly fine that the scope includes proper calendars that are based on the general calendar. If you don't like the terminology used in the article to refer to these more specific calendars, create a new section, because this is not the issue here. The issue is whether the entries in the description of the calendars can include "Saint", "Blessed", etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers, I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree in principle. However, proper calendars abound -- there's one for the territory of each episcopal conference, each diocese, each religious order, each congregation, monastery, or province of a religious order, each cathedral, and each parish. Even though these calendars are typically quite short since they do not replicate celebrations in another applicable calendar unless they elevate or transfer those celebrations, the sheer number is such that it probably would be utterly impracticable to incorporate all of them into one article. What actually happens is that the applicable calendars get fused each year to form an ordo, published annually, for each diocese and for each religious order or unit thereof, with conflicts within and among the calendars resolved according to the Table of Liturgical Precedence.

My archdiocese (Boston) has an excellent example of how this fusion works. The ordo for my archdiocese has facing pages, with celebrations of the proper calendars of the cathedral or a parish the necrology of the territory listed on the left page and celebrations that apply throughout the territory on the right page. The anniversary of the dedication of the cathedral, which is a feast in the proper calendar of the archdiocese and a solemnity in the proper calendar of the cathedral itself, falls on the 8th of December -- which is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception in the general calendar. When this date falls on a weekday, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception takes precedence so the Solemnity of the Dedication of the Cathedral transfers to the next available date, which is normally December 9th, in the cathedral itself. When this date falls on a Saturday, the next available date is December 10th because the celebration of the Second Sunday of Advent also takes precedence over a proper solemnity. And when this date falls on a Sunday, the Second Sunday of Advent has highest precedence so the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception transfers to December 9th (but the obligation does NOT transfer) and the Solemnity of the Dedication of the Cathedral transfers to December 10th in the cathedral itself. However, the Feast of the Dedication of the Cathedral is suppressed throughout the rest of the diocese because it is not of sufficient rank to transfer to the next available date. In the ordo itself, the particulars for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Sunday of Advent appear on the right page while the particulars for the Solemnity of the Dedication of the Cathedral appear on the left page, opposite the entry for the respective Advent weekday, with a notation that the entry applies only to the cathedral. Norm1979 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC

Should this and related articles use the honorific prefixes such as "Saint" and "Blessed" for each person listed therein? Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. The General Roman Calendar is a document which instructs Catholic clergy on how to celebrate the liturgy for each day. This instruction includes the use of the appropriate title, such as "Saint" or "Blessed," that the cleric must use with the individual being venerated on that day. These titles are not honorifics within the context of this calendar, but are functional content. If this article (and its related articles) are to otherwise represent the content of the calendar correctly, it would have to say, for example, "Agnes (given the title 'Saint' in the liturgy where this calendar is used)." But at that point, you may as well just say "Saint Agnes." If this is truly an issue, then we should include an explanatory note indicating that the titles come from the calendar itself. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• No per MOS:HON we do not use honorifics in this way. Elizium23 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply is given in the above discussion. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, (Summoned by bot) I find Jdcompguy's arguments in the prior section to be more compelling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, (Summoned by bot) because there are always exceptions to a rule and Jdcompguy made a convincing case for an exception with his arguments and I have not seen any counter argument from Elizium23. He only repeated the rule. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• No, without explicitly indicating that these are quotes or other attribution, this is wikivoice. As it is right now, this looks like a list of venerated individuals, organized by feast day. We don't let other religious groups use their special honorifics in lists of people. I am also reluctant to establish an exception to policy here, based on a limited consensus, when the exception should properly be established on MOS:BIO. That said, the established exception to MOS:HON for saints is for the names of buildings, churches, titles of paintings or works of art. I would argue that a natural extension of this extension is "Feast of Saint XXXX". If the entries were changed to this format, then I would agree with the above arguments about wikivoice and I would change my opinion to Yes. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with the proposal of raising the issue at MOS:BIO, but not to have "Feast" in front of every entry. It's not necessary, because it's obvious in the context. I would understand that we should make an exception for "Feast of saint XXXX" when it occurs by itself in a text. Under the same logic there should be an exception in a list in which it is obvious that they are feasts, without having to repeat "Feasts" in every entry. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  I have already alerted MOS:BIO watchers to this RFC. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  I do not see the logic that explains why "Feast of saint XXXX" would make a difference. The fact that it is a feast (or some other occasion) is clear anyway from the entry in the calendar. The key point is that this is not a list of people with honorific stated in Wikipedia's voice, but only a description of a calendar attributed to the church, which can be without problem expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: The calendar listings in this article already say, e.g., "Saint XYZ - Feast", in imitation of how the listings are given in the official documents. Is that not already functionally equivalent to "Feast of Saint XYZ"? Jdcompguy (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• No Wiki is an encyclopedia and should retain a neutral voice without honorifics unless absolutely required in a given context. This to me does not meet that threshold. TrueQuantum (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  It is absolutely required, if we want to know how the calendar distinguishes between blessed and saint. It is absolutely required, if we want the info to match with the most recent official sources. It will never be absolutely required per se, so asking that is unfair. OTOH, it is fair to say that it's not required by the spirit of the rule to remove "Saint", because what is given in Wiki's voice is only a description of the calendar attributed to the Catholic Church, which is more informative if it is more faithful. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum: The question is not whether people can have honorifics on Wikipedia (they can't, apart from the few exceptions); the question is whether we can represent what a church names their own feast days when the names of those feast days include those same honorifics. Jdcompguy (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point and the context now and agree with you. You described the ambiguity that is the heart of the issue in your comment below. I hope that we can all go forward to address the ambiguity in whether the calendar section is listing people organized by their feast day or listing feast days organized by date. If we are listing feast days organized by date, I would of course be perfectly fine with the honorifics. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the reason for our disagreement is that the actual calendar section of the article, as it stands, can be reasonably interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation is that we are listing people organized by their feast day. In this interpretation, the honorifics are being applied to the people themselves in Wikipedia's own voice. We all agree that this is not allowed. The second interpretation is that we are listing feast days organized by date. In this interpretation, the titles ("Saint" and "Blessed") are part of the names of the feast days. The feast days are named as such by the Catholic Church, and Wikipedia is quoting what the Catholic Church names their own feast days. I think we can likewise all agree that this should be allowed: we say "the Feast of Saint Andrew" like we say "the Church of Saint Andrew." I think we're ultimately in agreement on the principles; the problem is that this article's calendar listing is ambiguous such that it allows these two conflicting interpretations. Some of us might want to assume that our interpretation is the only reasonable one, but that is clearly not the case, given the present discourse. Given that the General Roman Calendar (taken together with its local variants) does distinguish between "Saint" and "Blessed," this is information that I believe we should retain. The question then becomes: how can we make it more clear that this article is quoting the names of feast days (which do include titles) and not giving a list of people (who cannot have titles)? Jdcompguy (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Let's address this ambiguity you described and then this entire issue of the honorifics is resolved. Thank you for your analysis and explanation. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What if we convert the calendar listings to tables? This would allow us to have a "Title of Feast Day" column that, at least in my mind, would remove the ambiguity. Here's what the beginning of the February listing looks like currently:

• 2 February: Presentation of the Lord – Feast
• 3 February: Saint Blaise, bishop and martyr; or Saint Ansgar, bishop – Optional Memorial
• 5 February: Saint Agatha, virgin and martyr – Memorial

Here is the proposed solution:

Date	Title of Feast Day	Rank
2 February	Presentation of the Lord	Feast
3 February	Saint Blaise, bishop and martyr	Optional Memorial
	Saint Ansgar, bishop	Optional Memorial
5 February	Saint Agatha, virgin and martyr	Memorial

Is this proposed solution acceptable to the concerned parties? Jdcompguy (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• No per MOS:HON Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Simply repeating the rule is not a helpful contribution. We all agree that the rule should be upheld when the rule applies. Can you please make an argument for why a listing of feast days should fall within the scope of MOS:BIOGRAPHY, of which MOS:HON is a part? Jdcompguy (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

People canonized by the Catholic Church are about as biographical as you can get. "Biography" means "writing about people's lives". The guideline is clear: it's binary, it's black and white. Either you get to have honorifics or you don't. I am saying that you don't.

Now another matter is whether this damages the utility of this article and others like it. My answer: of course it does! It does quite a bit of violence to the whole idea of a saints' calendar where the saints are ranked by type of feast as well as whether they are canonized, beatified, or less so. That's a huge problem, and I freely admit that Wikipedia's WP:PAG does a disservice to articles such as this.

But why make an exception here? If we make an exception here, there will be more and more exceptions. People already seem to think there are a million exceptions to WP:MOS guidelines. What basis do those exceptions stand on? Local consensus cannot override universal enwiki decisions. But it is nonetheless enacted, time and time again. Oh well! Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about making an exception to MOS:HON. I'm arguing that this doesn't even fall within its scope. (There's a third option besides "black" and "white," which is: "not applicable.") By arguing that MOS:HON (and therefore MOS:BIO) applies to a liturgical calendar, you're arguing that a Catholic feast day is biographical. The fact that a historical person has a feast day is biographical, certainly, but the feast day itself is not. To argue this is to argue that it's a biographical, neutral fact that a person is in heaven and worthy of veneration. It's not Wikipedia's place to make such assertions. The point of this article is to neutrally represent the views of a non-neutral organization (the Catholic Church). As soon as we edit the calendar listings in such a way that it contradicts the original Catholic calendar (e.g. by editing out titles), we cease to neutrally present the Catholic view and we make it into Wikipedia's view. This raises a serious WP:NPOV issue. Jdcompguy (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous and specious interpretation. The guideline applies to all articles throughout the encyclopedia. It happens to be sited in the "Biography" section because it pertains, first and foremost, to biographical information about persons. There is nothing in ithe guideline which says "go ahead and use honorifics all you want, as long as it's not a biography!" WP:PAG are organized in a particular way, and that organization is to make them easy to find, not to silo their effects and limit their scope only to the topics in question. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're quoting someone who refers to "Saint Andrew," and you edit the quotation to remove the "Saint" title, it ceases to become an accurate representation of what someone else said, and it becomes partly your own. This is the danger of editing what the Catholic Church asserts about these people in this context: it becomes partly our own assertion. Jdcompguy (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23: Try to see where the other side is coming from. I and others interpret this article as saying "here is a list of feast days as the Catholic Church presents them." When you try to apply MOS:HON, so that our calendar no longer matches the Catholic Church's in a crucial way, I interpret this as you changing the article so it says "here is a list of feast days as we Wikipedians present them" (hence, an NPOV issue). You see this article as saying "here is a list of people organized by the day on which the Catholic Church venerates them." You want to clarify that we Wikipedians are neutral with regard to this veneration, so you remove the titles in order to preserve NPOV. Do you see the issue? Both of us are acting in the interest of NPOV and are coming to opposite conclusions. Do you see where the other side is coming from? You've accepted that removing "Saint" and "Blessed" constitutes "violence" and ultimately information loss; can we make this article sit squarely on the side of only being able to be interpreted as a neutral representation of the Catholic calendar as it stands, titles and all? Jdcompguy (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The larger community has already told us that we cannot do so. It seems that those supporting honorifics are proposing to WP:IAR. If that's what you really want to do, knock yourselves out. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think both of you Jdcompguy and Elizium23 are trying your best to adhere to the guidelines as you both interpret them and are both acting in good faith. It's sad to see this argument getting emotionally heated so I want to try to just cool down the temperature here. I'm against using honorifics in violation of MOS:HON but if the subject is the day and not the person, then the "not applicable" choice may be the correct one here. If somehow this is still about the person more than the name of the day, then MOS:HON applies. I can see how it can get confusing since the day is the name of the person. So I just want to see if we can hear out some possible solutions to eliminate the ambiguity, as was offered above. TrueQuantum (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the view of TrueQuantum. Certainly, the rule is not that "Saint" or "Blessed" can never be used in front of the name of a person. It can be used when it is an intrinsic part of the name of something else, say buildings or, why not, special days as stated in an official calendar, in which case we must rely on the actual calendar to figure out the names. I congratulate Jdcompguy and TrueQuantum to have found this clarification of the issue. Their view on the issue is more precise and fundamental than only saying that it is fine to describe in Wiki's voice a calendar that is attributed to the church. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers, that is not what MOS:HON says:

Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa. Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, let's go back to the basic here. Keep in mind that this is a guideline, not a rigid rule. It says at the start: Common sense tells us that this guideline is way more for persons than it is for buildings, special days in an official calendar or other things in general. This is obvious from the fact that it is part of manual of styles for biography. So, the very fact that we are talking of names of special days in a calendar says that the rule does not apply. More than that, even if it applied a little, we have that the names of these special days include "Saint" in the most recent official calendars, which are the only reliable sources for these names. Anyway, there is a consensus here that the important issue is whether we are referring to names of persons or names of special days in a calendar. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your input here Dominic Mayers. I was really starting to second guess myself because the argument was getting so heated. From a neutral standpoint I really do believe that the most fair outcome here is to remove the ambiguity between names of special days in a calendar (can have honorifics) and names of people (cannot have honorifics). TrueQuantum (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum and Dominic Mayers: Does the proposed solution (a table with "Title of Feast Day" headers) achieve this objective satisfactorily? Jdcompguy (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Closing the RfC (among us) with the most important conclusion

Let's first close this RfC with the conclusion that, if the names are names of special days in some official calendar, then the use of "Saint", "Blessed", etc. must be as in the most recent version of the calendar. If no one opposes, I will simply remove the RfC tags and this will close the RfC with this conclusion. Once and if this is established, we will further discuss what if any thing is needed to make clear for the readers that there are indeed names of special days in an official calendar. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose premature closure by editor involved in the discussion. Please see WP:RFCEND. Elizium23 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated in the information page to which you linked, it's not "premature closure" if there's consensus (see item #2). Dominic Mayers was double-checking before closing, which was the appropriate course of action. You haven't yet put forward an argument against the consensus that the other participants have reached, so his assumption that there was consensus was a reasonable one. If you have additional contributions to make about why you think the majority consensus is incorrect (namely, about why MOS:HON should be applied to something that is not, strictly speaking, the name of a person, albeit something that includes the name of a person), feel free to do so. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Jdcompguy, LOL you guys have yourselves twisted in crazy knots trying to justify this! I have never seen a more ridiculous perversion of the guidelines! This really takes the cake! Congratulations! Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight:

1. Names of people but not actually names of people
2. Not actually biographical so biography guidelines don't apply
3. Can't agree on what the Church documents say
4. In Wikivoice but not actually in Wikivoice, in fact this article will speak for the Catholic Church directly! Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We are assuming good faith on your part. Please do the same. "Church of Saint Andrew" is the name of a church that includes the name of a person. "Feast of Saint Andrew" is the name of a feast that includes the name of a person. MOS:HON applies to neither. I would like to think that this is common sense. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

State of the Question

I am starting a new heading because the above discussion has become very messy. I think the reason it's so messy is because we're arguing multiple questions at once. I will attempt to list them all to provide some clarity.

1. Is this article a list of people or a list of feast days? After reflecting on this question with everyone else's input, I believe the answer to this question is definitively the latter, because otherwise you'd have to justify why we're mixing feast day names like "Presentation of the Lord" or "Christmas" with a list of people. (If this is a list of people, we should be renaming "Christmas" to "Jesus" for consistency.) I am under the impression that Elizium23 has been treating this as a list of people but I am not sure.
2. Assuming it's a list of feast days: Does the Catholic Church include the word "Saint" or "Blessed" in the name of the feast day? According to the most recent documents across multiple languages, the answer is unanimously "yes." There was some confusion above because some contributors were referring to an almost 50-year-old book that didn't include the "Saint" title, even though books published before and after it did. In any case, the calendar contained in that book is an older version which is not the topic of this article.
3. Does MOS:HON apply to the names of feast days? Apart from Elizium23, our unanimous consensus is "no." MOS:HON doesn't apply to St. Peter's feast day any more than it applies to St. Peter's Basilica. We don't go around Wikipedia renaming it to "Peter's Basilica" because of MOS:HON. I believe it is clear that Elizium23 disagrees with the majority consensus on this point but it's not clear to me why.

I hope this provides a starting point from which we can continue any further discussion. I think it might be helpful if Elizium23 could tell us where he stands on each of these questions and why. Jdcompguy (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the reasons that to me this looks like a list of people is that you include information like "bishop" or "martyr" or other descriptors that apply to the person, not the celebration. If you took those out and appended each entry with "Feast of..." or whatever the appropriate designation is, it would unambiguously be a list of feast days. I would agree that for full feast names, it falls under the existing exception to MOS:HON, but with just the name of person (and especially with the biographical descriptions) it does not. What is the objection to prepending "Feast of..."? --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Designations such as "bishop" and "martyr" are integral parts of the General Roman Calendar. It is necessary to know them when celebrating the liturgy, for example: should I use the common of pastors or common of martyrs? Which hymn is appropriate for this commemoration of this saint? These designations appear in all official and WP:RS. They cannot be omitted. Elizium23 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

But are those designations part of the feast name? I admit I'm not Catholic nor deeply well-versed in Catholic liturgy, so some of the subtlety may be lost on me. This wouldn't be the first time that Wikipedia's manual of style policies trump/override ecclesiastical manuals of style - just ask any Latter-day Saint editor. Is there another way to indicate this necessary information, without making the list item appear like the name of a person? Are all of these descriptors necessary? Are there any that aren't? --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

They are an integral part of the feast and they must always be specified where there is a calendar entry so that the liturgy may be celebrated properly. All of them are necessary, because they each represent valid options that the celebrant may choose from. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A fundamental question to ask ourselves is whether the article should actually describe the calendar faithfully. This is important, because clearly the calendar serves to honor individuals. This is not specific to the calendar. We also name streets, churches, buildings, etc. to honor individuals. If we have an article about a building, we will use the name of the building faithfully even if we know that it was named that way to honor the individual. It is OK, because Wikipedia did not name the building. The same logic applies to the description of a calendar, but it's not exactly the same, because these entries identify special days in the calendar. They are not the name of the calendar itself. They might not even qualify as names at all. For example, is "St Andrew — Feast" a name or simply a way to identify the feast in the calendar? It's not the same, but faithfulness would still imply that we use "St Andrew — Feast" and not "Andrew — Feast" or even "Feast of St Andrew". Let's be clear that, if we are not faithful, the article will become less informative only because we are conducting a war against these honors. This war is not necessary, because these entries have not been created by Wikipedia and therefore they are not honors made by Wikipedia, just as this is the case when we report the name of a building that honors an individual. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

To me, there is a difference between "St Andrew - Feast" and "Feast of St Andrew", just as there would be a difference between "St. Peter's Basilica" and "St. Peter, apostle - Basilica". And I don't think that I would be the only reader that would argue there is a difference. What your argument appears to me is that the style choices of the Catholic Church should override the WP style policies. A similar debate has been raging off and on regarding MOS:LDS, especially recently with the church's rejection of the "LDS Church" shorthand, yet WP continues to use it. Similarly, WP rejects the "Elder" honorific for LDS general authorities. By the above argument, I could get around on this on List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by arguing that I am trying to faithfully recreate the church's own list of general authorities. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can conclude decisively using your comparisons. In particular, I don't think that a list of individuals should be compared with a calendar. The question "should the honorific title added for faithfulness?" can be asked in both cases, but I do not see why these two cases should receive the same answer. It seems to me that the criterion that justifies having the honorific title is that it must have been done in some reliable source and it must be needed from the nature of the subject to include that information—it cannot be Wikipedia's decision. This criterion is satisfied with the name of a building, because the name of a building is a convention that Wikipedia cannot violate. It is not satisfied with an ordinary list of individuals, because it is arbitrary whether we put the honorific title or not. It is satisfied in the description of a religious calendar, maybe not the specific style "Feast of St Andrew" vs "St Andrew — Feast", but the honorific title, saint or blessed, has to be there, because it's expected in a religious calendar. It is not an information added by the editors or Wikipedia to honor the person. The Church might have used the calendar to honor individuals, but Wikipedia remained neutral and simply did what was natural to do by convention. This is where common sense enters into play: "saint", "blessed", etc. are expected by convention in a religious calendar, just as "St" is expected in the name "Feast of St Andrew". Using a style such as "Feast of St Andrew" that corresponds to a name of a feast day would help a lot, because a name is a convention that is hard to violate, but it cannot be the basic argument, because one could counterargue that it is not what is seen in the calendar. That's why I refer also to the more general convention that religious calendars contain "saints", "blessed", etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my attempt at comparison was confusing. What I'm trying to show is that arguing a style because it's the style used by the religious organization is insufficient to ignoring WP policies. As an active Latter-day Saint editor, I see this a lot. For example, it took over two years to change the article title for the Tabernacle Choir after its official name change (and the article title still does not match the official name). WP still uses "LDS" and "Mormon" descriptors after the Church has discontinued the use of the terms. In an example that affects multiple churches, WP articles do not use the unqualified, capitalized "Church" except in quotes even though this is the practice of multiple churches (such as the Catholics and Latter-day Saints) when referring to themselves. Even when the topic is religious in nature, WP policies can and do override the religious style.

Consensus is a tricky thing, and usually means finding a solution that is good enough for most editors. Honestly, I feel that the "Feast of St Andrew"-type option, leaving in the qualifiers of "bishop" or "martyr" or whatever for the reasons Elizium23 mentioned above, is the best one here because it is unambiguous that it is the name of the celebration/holy day. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Saint Louis is a city. The honorific is fine because it is the name of a non-person. Let's find the consensus necessary to make this article clear that we are talking about days not the individual. FyzixFighter's proposal above is one. Jdcompguy's table structure is another proposal. Let's decide which one is the best. If there is a third option, I'm all ears as well. TrueQuantum (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

TrueQuantum, "St. Louis" (as in St. Louis, Missouri) is indeed a good example that shows that we can use "St." in a name (and thus "Saint", "Blessed", etc.), as long as in the context it is not the name of a person, even though if it is well known that the city was named in the honor of Saint Louis IX. However, my point above is that it is not the general principle. For example, if the purpose of a list of individuals is to indicate whether the individual is blessed or saint and there is a consensus that this purpose is pertinent in the article, then obviously it is admissible to include "saint" or "blessed" in that list. The general principle is that it must not be Wikipedia's decision to include the honorific, but something that is forced by the context. I would add that it is not obvious to me that all entries that include "Saint" in the calendar are names of a feast day. One could very well argue that it is only an information saying that the day is in memory of that person and not the name of the day. That would explain why the entry is not "Feast of Saint X", but "Saint X — Feast". Therefore, it is good to have the general principle, since it applies independently of whether it is the name of a feast day or simply an information that is expected by convention in a religious calendar. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your rationale is invalid. The MOS:HON exception is not for "non-person" references, because the name of a church is still a personal and patronal name. The exception is as follows:

Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa.

Per WP:NCCL: Cathedral and church building names, unless they individually use something different (e.g. Divi Blasii), often follow the convention of "{Church building} of Saint {X}", as in Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran. Other formulas exist, however. For example, "Saint" may be written as St (British English) or St. (American English), hence St Paul's Cathedral not Saint Paul's Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica not Saint Peter's Basilica, etc., if overwhelming sources indicate this as WP:COMMONNAME other than instances merely replicating printing press text minimalism.

Because the WP:COMMONNAME of parish churches includes the honorific, and every reference to them in news, books, scholarship, includes the official and common name, it is for this reason that we include honorifics in Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

But as far as I can tell, what you wrote corroborates my point. It does not contradict it. I am saying that it is OK to include the honorific when it is not Wikipedia's decision, but forced in the context, say by a naming convention. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Again proposing to close the RfC among us

I am not saying that we have agreed on what should be the entries, but that was not the question of the RfC. The question was whether we can use "saint", "blessed", etc. in these entries. There are other things to discuss, but the RfC has achieved its original purpose. Closing the RfC with some conclusion will confirm that an important step was achieved. If we still want a RfC, no problem, but then let's formulate another question in a different RfC. If we don't succeed to agree on closing this RfC with some useful conclusion, it will still have been very useful to try. The consensus I see is:

We can use "Saint", "Blessed", etc. in the entries of our description of the calendar as long as it is clear that it does not violate MOS:BIO guidelines, for example, if it is clear that it is in the name of a non-person feast day such as "Feast of Saint Andrew".

Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There you have it, folks. The Catholic saints are unpersons. Elizium23 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Dominic Mayers is saying Catholic saints are unpersons. I think everyone here has the utmost respect for all human beings whether they are Catholic saints or ordinary people. He is saying that the calendar days are unpersons, and I agree with that assessment. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, you have not considered the excellent TrueQuantum's example of St. Louis which in some context is clearly the name of a city, not the name of a person, even though the city is well known to have been named in honor of Saint Louis IX. This being said feel free to modify the statement of the consensus, if you think it is unclear. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers, I have; see what I just wrote above about these knot-twisting nit-picking elaborate house of cards based on imaginary theories not in the WP:PAG. Elizium23 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, can you summarize this in one or two sentences that can be applied to our situation be used as a consensus statement for our situation. BTW, I still don't see what's wrong in my sentences. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, that cannot be used as a consensus statement. Please show some good will to achieve consensus. In particular, do not cherry pick guidelines that do not apply to our case. In particular, WP:COMMONNAME is for an article's title and above you refer to a subsection of WP:Naming conventions (clergy) that again only applies to an article's title. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers, and you have referred to no guideline excerpts at all, you have cited no prior consensus, you don't have a shred of evidence for your fantastical concoctions to justify this, you are inventing completely new concepts that are foreign and inimical to Wikipedia's manual of style. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, the situation is that you claim that WP:MOSBIO prevents us from including "Blessed", "Saint", etc. in the description of a calendar. I pointed out the most relevant part of this guideline, which is that we should use common sense and that exceptions may apply. Clearly, a calendar is a special situation and exceptions may apply and we must use common sense. So, yes, I am referring to common sense. The common sense argument accepted by many people here is that, if we use "Feast of Saint X", then it becomes the name of a feast day and MOSBIO does not apply. I admit that I think we should generalize it, but for a start, let's consider this common sense argument. What's wrong with it? Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not needed at this stage

My generalized common sense argument relies more directly on the excerpt "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article." To avoid Wikipedia's own voice and thus respect the guideline, it is sufficient to clearly state that the description comes from the general calendar created by the Church. This is a direct application of Wikipedia's own voice. For example, the text of the policy says "an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.'" In principle, this should have been enough to close the discussion, because, if we say that it is what the Church uses, it is not in Wikipedia's own voice and we do not violate WP:MOSBIO. However, in fairness, I felt that a faithful description of a source that includes honorific titles should be required by the context, because otherwise it is like using a loophole in the guideline to artificially use honorific titles. The point here is that, if it is an arbitrary choice made by editors to include this information, it breaks the spirit of the rule, even if the info is explicitly attributed to the Church, not in Wikipedia's own voice. It turns out that this extra requirement is quite strong and seems enough in itself to capture the spirit of the rule. In particular, it covers as a sub-case the fact that honorific titles are acceptable in names of churches, buildings, bridges, cities, etc. In this sub-case, the name convention (say for the church) is the context that requires that we use the honorific title. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we can claim a consensus or not, but it sounds like the best "out" in this situation is to list the full title of the celebration, as in "Feast of Saint Andrew, Apostle" for November 30th. That way, it's clearly the title of the celebration and not just the name of the person. And yes, the descriptive term ("Apostle" in this example or "Repentant Sinner" in the case of St. Mary Magdalene) IS part of the title. Thus, this approach should be pretty incontrovertible. Norm1979 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If the title is verifiable, that seems good. Regarding consensus, we will wait a bit. A RfC is not a vote. It's a process to reach a consensus. It's not useful to come to a RfC just to vote and then go away. I have been summoned by a bot to come help here and I do that thoroughly. I am willing to change my position if I see some arguments and I expect the same from all editors. It's the outcome of that discussion that matters. The only opposition to the consensus statement that is proposed above is from Elizium23 and I am still waiting to see if he has some counterarguments against our common sense argument and variants on it: in your case, you speak of title instead of name, but it's the same idea. If we refer to anything, a book, an article, etc. with a title, it makes sense to keep "saint" or whatever else that occurs in the title. My hidden argument above is actually more basic than that: we expect "saint", "blessed", etc. to occur in a religious calendar, so the information is pertinent and it's not done in wiki's voice, because we say explicitly that this information is from the Church, as it must be given the subject of the article. There is not even a need to say that it's the name of a feast day or the title of an entry in this basic argument. I am just thinking now that the title argument is complementary. It makes it clearer that it's not in Wiki's voice. How can anyone verify that it's indeed the title? Is it verifiable on the Internet or in libraries? Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers: The titles are verifiable by reference to the Roman Missal, in which the General Roman Calendar is published. There's a Latin edition that includes the General Roman Calendar properly speaking, and then there are vernacular language versions that include adaptations for specific countries. This Wikipedia article, as it currently stands, is faithful to the way that the feast days are listed in the latest official books: e.g., "Saint Andrew, Apostle – Feast". Jdcompguy (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In the English translation of the Roman Missal published by Liturgy Training Publications, an entry in the Roman Calendar is one or more pages with a title such as "Saint Andrew, Apostle – Feast", not "Feast of Saint Andrew, Apostle". Nevertheless, I am not against using "Feast of Saint Andrew, Apostle", if it helps, because then the context is the name of a feast day. But another argument is that, if the use of a honorific title is required by the context, which is not necessarily the name of a feast day, then it's not in Wiki's voice, but in the voice of whoever has fixed that context. In our case, the context is a title that identifies a feast day in a religious calendar. It might not be exactly the name of a feast day, but it's close enough. If there are no further inputs to oppose the proposed closing statement below, which is supported by these common sense arguments, I will close the RfC. If the opposition does not allow any progress, e.g., it is the same editor that repeats the same argument, I will request that an administrator close the RfC. It is important to allow the process to continue as much as needed so that the administrator as a strong basis to establish the status of the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed closing statement:

We close the RfC because the strict yes/no question of the RfC is not adequate anymore: there seems to be a consensus that, if done properly, Saint, Blessed, etc. can be used and we have moved to a stage where we discuss what changes are needed. If necessary, at some point, we will start a new RfC with a more useful question regarding what needs to be modified.

Closing RFC

I tried to close the RfC as planned, but Elizium23 reverted it even though he did not contribute to the discussion for around 28 hours and was notified that we waited for more inputs from him. Of course anyone can make an RfC or maintain one. It just does not seem optimal to me, especially now that we have a more basic issue to discuss here. The outcome of the discussion here will be either very helpful to the issue of the current RfC or make it obsolete. So, the discussion here should be the priority. An administrator should come and close (or suspend if that is possible) the current RfC so that the discussion here can happen. Dominic Mayers (talk)

And, of course, as recommanded, we should try to resolve this other issue among us before doing an RfC on it. An RfC should be done only when we are stuck and there is no progress. This also allows all sides to present their best arguments before calling the RfC, which is very helpful for those who come to help. Of course anyone can quickly decide without much discussion that the situation is a dead end and call the RfC. It's just sad when this happens. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

For a third time, proposing to close the RfC, but this time with help

See the subsection #A request that we close the RfC below where I propose to close the RfC in the context of an important issue that was raised recently. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:49, 18 June 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.

In English, are words solemnity, feast, (optional) memorial always written with capital first letter?

I am a non-native English speaker an I am a bit confused about the capitalisation of celebration levels. In some articles/books I find the celebration levels written with uppercase initial letter, others only when it talks about a specific celebration (just like we do with words like pope, president, committee, …).

Is here anyone who can provide me some rules when which the casing is used? As far as I can tell, this article (GRC) always writes these words with capital first letter. 7otto (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

7oto, MOS:GOD covers this. They should generally be lowercase in this article. Thanks for pointing it out. Elizium23 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GOD applies differently in different contexts. For example, it does not say that we must modify direct quotations, names of city or titles of work (superseded by MOS:TITLECAPS). Therefore, to answer the question, we must determine what exactly are the entries in the calendar. But, before we can even do that, we must determine what is their purpose in the article. For a similar reason, I insist that we are skipping important steps here, if we plan to directly answer the question of the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It should go without saying that the normal rules of English grammar take precedence over MOS:GOD (e.g. no one in their right mind would cite MOS:GOD as an excuse to change "Angels" to "angels" when "Angels" is the first word of a sentence). In the calendar listing, "Solemnity," "Feast," and "Memorial" should be capitalized, if for no other reason than because they are standalone words following a hyphen. They should also be capitalized if they are overtly part of the feast's name, and therefore part of a proper name (e.g. "the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul"). But if they are in running text, they should be lowercased (e.g. "This feast day is a solemnity."). Jdcompguy (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The only grammar rule that I know is that an em dash replaces a comma, parenthesis or a column. In this case, it seems to replace a column or maybe a pair of parentheses, being at the end, there is no need for the second em dash. In both cases, it does not justify that we capitalize the word after the em dash, even if it is alone. Here is an example where the em dash replaces a column : "After months of deliberation, the jurors reached a unanimous verdict⁠—guilty". However, in a title, the rule is to capitalize it. So, again, it depends on what is the content of an entry in the calendar and this depends on its purpose. Even if it seems obvious that the description of the calendar has a purpose, it seems important to clarify what exactly is the purpose. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammatically, words such as "solemnity" and "feast" normally are capitalized only when they are part of a proper title. Thus, "New Year's Day is a solemnity" (not capitalized) but "New Year's Day is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God" (capitalized because "Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God" is a proper title). The same is true of ranks in the ecclesiastical hierarchy (pope, bishop, abbot, monsignor, etc.) -- and this can cut two ways: "the pope issued a decree yesterday" (not capitalized) but "Pope Francis issued a decree yesterday" (capitalized because the title is part of a proper name); also, "Sean O'Malley is my archbishop" (not capitalized) but "Sean O'Malley is the Archbishop of Boston" (capitalized because "Archbishop of Boston" a proper title of an ecclesiastical office). Of course the first word of a sentence is always capitalized, regardless of whether it's normally capitalized or not. Norm1979 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

> @Norm1979: the pope issued a decree yesterday

I heard that the capitalisation of _pope_ in this example depends on the style guide in use (or maybe its version). I was taught that _the President_, _the Pope_ is written with uppercase P when we mean a specific person. I seems like over the time this rule faded and now most style guides recommend to use lowercase p. 7otto (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The style guide that we use is WP:MOS, Wikipedia style guide. Differences between style guides out there is not the issue. The issue is that our style guide, WP:MOS, has different rules when it is a running text than when it is a title of work, the name of a special day and other similar exceptional cases listed in the guidelines. It's clearly not running text, but there is no consensus on what it is exactly. For a while, I thought it was important to know exactly what they are, titles, names of feast days, etc., but I now change my position on this. My common sense position is that these entries are close enough to titles of works or names of events to apply the corresponding rules and it is not important to determine exactly what they are. Besides, I was naive when I thought that knowing the purposes of these entries would tell us what they are. One could say that one of their purposes is to provide any information about the entries that might eventually be useful to a reader and this purpose can be met in many ways—it does not fix the format that should be used for the entries. Knowing this purpose is still useful to explain why we do not remove "Saint", "Blessed", etc. from the entries. Therefore, the question of whether or not the article should have this list of entries and why it should have it should be answered first—I do not change my mind on this. In particular, I want to know Elizium23 position on the question of the previous section #Question about the list of dates: should the article have this list of calendar's entries in the first place and why? This context is important. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Mayers, okay bad choice of example on my part, because words such as "pope" and "president" can become proper nouns when they are a shortened form of a title, the rest of which is implicit. Thus, one would write "the President" if the context made it clear that one meant the President of the United States or the President of ACME Corporation, and one could construe that example as falling within this situation. A better example: "Only the pope can promulgate an apostolic constitution." -- this context clearly does not refer to a specific pope, but rather to any pope. Norm1979 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Norm1979, I was only saying that there is no need to refer to various style guidelines, which fill in the grey areas of grammar and usage, since we have our own. I did not want to enter into these grey areas. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about the list of dates

Maybe this is throwing fire on an already hot debate. But why does this article need a complete listing of all of these different dates? Especially since, as far as I've been able to tell, none of them are cited to anything. Would "List of ____" articles be a better fit for all of these dates, if even that? They are not adding anything to the understanding of the subject for someone who is attempting to look it up and people who need to know the dates are going to be looking elsewhere for that information, in my opinion. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that, but it is a different issue. Starting on this other issue, would be another reason to close the RfC and come back only if the consensus is to keep the list (of title entries in the calendar). It may actually help, because if the outcome is that the list must be preserved, then at the least we should be consistent and make it reflects the calendar. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking from my own experience: I refer to this article and its related articles often, at times when I need to look up a feast day in the course of my personal studies. The dates are drawn from disparate sources (one source per congregation/country) and I find it helpful to have it all in one place. At the same time, I agree that improvements are in order. But let's wait to discuss that until the above RfC is finished. Jdcompguy (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should be closed first. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

SamStrongTalks, the entire list of dates should have a single reference, to the list as it appears in the General Roman Calendar. One possible citation is Liturgy of the Hours, Vol. I, Catholic Book Publishing Company, New York, 1975, pp. 105-116, though it probably is not the most current, but there are plenty of other possible sources that one could cite. There may be a need for specific citations for dates added to the General Roman Calendar after publication of the source cited for the entire list. Additionally, there may be a need for additional citations for proper calendars if the article presents them. Norm1979 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We need the references for verifiability. Every single entry must be sourced. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the admissibility of the list, I had this question myself, but I worry much more about the content of admitted articles/lists than about their admissibility. Anyone can contest the admissibility of the list, but while it is admitted, as it is the case now, we must work to improve it. Any concern regarding the usefulness of the list should be put aside and editors should focus in making the list as useful as possible in respect of the guidelines and policies. So, unless someone adds something to this discussion regarding the admissibility of the list, I am not adding anything more to this section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Unqualifed occurrences of ‘Church’

Yesterday, @FyzixFighter edited the article to fix ‘unqualifed occurrences of "Church" - change to either "church" or qualify with name of church’. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1030473717?diffmode=source).

I don’t think that this change is necessary. Also ‘Catholic Church’ is not ‘fully qualified’ name of the Church (although the former is officially used by the Holy See; see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)).

Reasons:

1. The entire article is about the calendar used by the Roman Catholic Church and therefore everyone knows from the context what church it is about. If we need to talk about a different Church within the article (e.g. for comparison), then it would be necessary to distinguish them, but only within that part of the article.

2. We need to check if those changes are not made within the quoted text.

A side note: I find citations like `{{canon law}}` within the article source code quite hidden (I found this right before the first paragraph of the GRC article). Not every Wiki editor edits the source code directly and the readers don’t know the particular text is a quote. Or I get it wrpng and it is not a quote and `{{canon law}}` has a different purpose? 7otto (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki removed _{{canon law}}_ in backticks from my previous comment. 7otto (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

→ \{\{canon law\}\} 7otto (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@7otto: The edit was based on the "Generic words" bullet under MOS:INSTITUTIONS. This has come up on talk pages ocassionally, for example Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_55#"the_Church"_or_"the_church"? regarding the Catholic Church specifically, but also on the articles of other churches who also prefer the shorthand "Church" in their own documents. I also don't think fully qualified is not required, for example the MOS allows for "LDS Church" as shorthand for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (again, even though this is contrary to the church's own non-wiki style guidelines). Hence "Catholic Church" is sufficiently qualified, as well as just "church" when it would not be overly ambiguous and if "Catholic Church" would be overly repetitive. Wikipedia's MOS takes precedence over external style guidelines.

I agree that quoted text is an exception. I've tried to make sure that I didn't change quoted text, but please correct where I've been mistaken.

As for the {{canon law}}, it is not a citation but a template which creates the "part of a series" box on the side. The template is Template:canon law. You can use <nowiki></nowiki> tags to prevent the insertion of the actual template in your comments (I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty to add those to your comment above so we don't have three instances of the template here). --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @FyzixFighter, for the clarifications. The more I see those MOSes, the more I dislike them. And regarding the nowiki: I just wanted to quickly send the comment without searching for the Wiki syntax. ;) 7otto (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)