Jump to content

Talk:Our Lady of Perpetual Help

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

Spanish wiki

[edit]

es:Virgen_del_Perpetuo_Socorro has some material that a better translator could include here, particularly about the virgin's cult in and patronage of Haiti. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of San Matteo church

[edit]

Neither of the sources cited supports the statement that churches were destroyed “for specific infantry bases.” One of them only says “one writer reports“ that Masséna “destroyed almost 30 churches.” More reliable sources on what really happened here would be better. Until we have those, let’s just say that San Matteo in Via Merulana was “among the several churches demolished during the French occupation” and leave it at that.

I‘ve also tried to give context to what French troops were doing in Rome in 1798. Tkinias (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem in those edits. But refs 20 and 21 about Haiti seem pretty shaky and less than WP:RS, so that last section needs help too. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology box layout

[edit]

Hi, History2007! I moved the Mariology box on the Our Lady of Perpetual Help page because its location there breaks the layout on some browsers. The template needs work so that it properly clears on the right but it really shouldn’t be down in the lower section where it screws up the layout. I’m open to another way of fixing it but please don’t revert my fix. Tkinias (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the box’s location under “Origin and Discovery” causes it not to clear the infobox on the right, leading to screwy layout. Tkinias (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I fixed the template so it will clear properly now. Tkinias (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the current placement looks terrible, but it is such a trivial issue I will not revert you. Just fix it yourself better than this. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what’s “terrible” about the the present layout? It’s below the infobox, as it was before I edited, just with the brokenness fixed. Tkinias (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zero encyclopedic difference. But an interior designer will cringe because it smashes too visual boxes together, then lots of text. It is like having too paintings on one side of a all in a room, the other walls empty. But a trivial issue. Nothing "wrong" just basic design. Just move it lower and forget it. I will say no more on this. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocritical reference on the "1990 restoration" line yet cannot be used for Carbon Dating info????

[edit]

It is so hypocritical that the same reference is used for the "1990 Restoration" on one of the sections of the article, YET cannot be used for the carbon-dating process initiated by the Redemptorist Order to the Vatican Museum. Who gets to decide which sentence is acceptable for credible source? REALLY?

I read the guidelines. So why use the reference in other sentences if you are going to deny reference to the same source of information? Same hypocritical B.S. based on nitpicking, cherry-picking bias. So aggravating to see that the CSSR website itself is not deemed as credible, yet is used AGAIN in other sections of the article.

If that's the case then just remove it altogether, since its not deemed credible anyway. what the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveforMary (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the way to do it, I could confirm the 1990 restoration via: Journal of folklore research, 2005 Volumes 42-43 Indiana University, Bloomington. Folklore Institute. I could not confirm the carbon dating. That website is not WP:RS. Period. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you know you do these things to intentionally annoy and aggravate people who don't kiss ass to you. I read your talk page.

More importantly, the icon has been in historical existence since 1499. It's not like the article is claiming the image existed for 2000 years since Saint Luke the Evangelist. We ALL KNOW its a ROMAN COPY from Turkey. We get that. Should the icon be dated to 1380-1425 is not dramatic. 100 years or so doesn't make a difference. This is not the Shroud of Turin we're talking about OK?

You should be more upset and micromanaging if some moron claimed that the icon is over 3,000 years and old and dates back from Ancient Atlantis. But for a 100-year old age dispute? Is it THAT SERIOUS?? You're gonna give people a hard time over this? Talk about Micro-managing at its finest. LoveforMary (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary[reply]

The issue here is not whether we micromanage, or who does or does not "kiss our ass", or whether we are hypocrites. The issue is whether the source is reliable. Calm down. Rwflammang (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have been having WP:RS problems with this account (may be several people in fact) as in Talk:Patronages_of_the_Immaculate_Conception, as stated on the LoveforMary talk page. And there have been proclamations of "pious devotions" as papal statements that were Afd-ed etc, as here. So this is not a new issue and goes back to an indef-blocked user Lloyd Baltazar from before. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PerpetualNovena.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:PerpetualNovena.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Site of San Matteo church

[edit]

The church and monastery of San Matteo in Merulana was not sited near the present church of Sant'Alfonso de'Liguori. It was further south-east down the Via Merulana, and the actual site of the church is now occupied by the convent chapel of Sant'Elena in the Via Machiavelli. There is a page on this church on the Churches of Rome Wiki: [[1]] Basilwatkinsosb (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May—June 2023 changes

[edit]

An IP editor has massively edited the article over the last month. Many of their edits have been unsourced, poorly sourced, or in conflict with Wikipedia's manual of style. I am opening this discussion in hopes that the editor will engage in discussion here. In the event no discussion occurs, the edits will be reverted to the version prior to the IP's edits with the relevant MOS- and policy-related changes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert your changes as you have improved this article considerably. I'mm not part of the group that began this article so it is only an opinion. Personally I'd have preferred to use the actual Italian name but if using the English translation use 'Succour' and not @Help@ as they have different meanings. Dorkinglad (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR = Valencia is not a country

[edit]

There is an error in this page. Valencia is an Anonimous Community in Spain. Valencia isn't a country. 84.125.127.27 (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment of the Feast Day

[edit]

Where is this on the Catholic liturgical calendar? It doesn't appear here https://www.usccb.org/resources/2024cal.pdf That calendar assigns June 27 to Saint Cyril of Alexandria Is it an informal tradition to celebrate this feast on June 27? patsw (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I broke this into two sections. The new Feast Day section explains its appearance on the calendar and has citations and appropriate links. patsw (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation doesn't cite 27 June as the Feast Day but the "Sunday before the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist" which could never be 27 June but before. I guess the propers of the feast does that, but I think we could use a better citation here. There's also no mention from the sources that this feast was ever on the Universal Calendar. I also don't think the citation for some countries are necessary because they aren't listed in the Veneration section. BaBaBa91 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me reiterate the last part, I think citations are necessary for certain countries because they aren't listed in the Veneration section of the article. I did not proofread that sentence as I was rewriting it, my mistake. BaBaBa91 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is Assigment of the Feast Day not History of the Assignment of the Feast Day and I am making editing judgments about what to include and exclude.
If there should be corrections to, or more citations in National calendars of the Roman Rite, General Roman Calendar or General Roman Calendar of 1960 bring that up on those respective pages. patsw (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a reason they aren't mentioned on any of those pages BaBaBa91 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Our_Lady_of_Perpetual_Help&oldid=1233335130"