Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 2

1053:, they have a name (John Doe) and a function which can be used as disambiguation if needed, and then in the same format as other disambiguations: so "John Doe" becomes "John Doe (bishop)", and only when there are more of these, "John Doe (bishop of Worchester)". There is no reason at all to make an exception for bishops. As to whether it should be (bishop of Worchester) or (Bishop of Worchester), that's a minor and separate point: the Bishop of Worchester is a bishop of Worchester, and I interpret "John Doe (bishop of Worchester)" to mean "John Doe (a bishop of Worchester)". It's not about their title, it's about their function, their job: John Doe was a bishop of Worchester. 1224:

while brackets are great for disambiguation, pure and simple, without implying anything more than that. If you interpret the use of punctuation in this way, 'X (bishop of Y)' would seem to leave more room for the possibility that X controlled more than one see or got promoted to another. There are no doubt many individual cases where your suggestion would present no problems, but there's something to be said though in favour of a consistent arrangement 'X (bishop of Y)', rather than the pair of them as options to choose from on individual merits.

3690:

are not also bishops could, I think, all be distinguished also by the word "theologian". But I see no reason why "cardinal" could not be used, both for the historical cardinals whether bishops or perhaps not even deacons, and also for today's cardinals, whether bishops or not bishops. If occupations can be used, cannot ranks also? Indeed why should "archbishop" not be used when appropriate? That too is a rank. I suppose that for non-episcopal Christians and those who do not believe in any form of holy orders "bishop" too is merely a rank.

2714:: "we disambiguate bishops first using "(bishop)" and then, if there are several bishops of the same name, according to (archi)episcopal title "(bishop of Cork and Ossory)" or "(archbishop of Canterbury)". The reason I have purged "(archbishop)" is because all archbishops are bishops – "archbishop" is only a title to be held while in that see (i.e. these people revert to bishop upon retirement or otherwise vacating the see), whereas "bishop" is the ecclesiastical order to which all of these (arch)bishops belong in perpetuity." 2499:. Of the merely two examples given (followed by the weasel "etc."), that of Saint Peter has been shown, after discussion, to be highly questionable and was cast aside even by an editor who favours making some change. (The apostles can be called bishops only analogously: the office of bishop is not identical with that of apostle.) Clement is commonly called Clement of Rome in writings about the Church Fathers, but for the ordinary reader "Pope Clement I" is far more illuminating an identification than "Clement of Rome". 2265:, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth." Some of the declarations of the Second Vatican Council are quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 880-884: "Just as by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, 2845:: i.e. Cardinal bishop, Cardinal priest, and Cardinal deacon. So to disambiguate "Cardinal Joe Bloggs" with other Joe Bloggs he should be "Joe Bloggs (cardinal)". However, he is being disambiguated as "Joe Bloggs (bishop)" even though he is in one of the three orders of cardinals. If someone has been elevated as a cardinal then they should be disambiguated as such. There needs to be a consensus on disambigating cardinals, archbishops and bishops. -- 3544:

today use Mar not because that is the practice of Syrian/Syriac churches, but because, historically, the Indian churches chose to adopt such nomenclature, assimilated it as an Indian church practice (which resembles Indian religious practice in general), and continue it today. Some other elements of the Syrian/Syriac churches were rejected, and some other influences, both Indian and external, adopted, forming the Indian churches of the present day.

3771: 31: 2020:, a uniform style for the titles of articles on the popes. It would be unhelpful to have nearly all the Knowledge (XXG) articles on popes titled "Pope Name Number", but odd ones here and there given some other titles lacking all uniformity. There is a similar clear advantage in uniformity of style for the titles of articles on "Antipope Name Number". The discussion, referred to above, on the proposal to change the title of the article on 1172:

includes his highest substantive title, which is also the practice for British peers. This is also much what is being propsoed for monarchs Under a current discussion. However, it should be rarely necessary to include the see (or latest or final see). The Anglican practice of tranlating bishops from one see to another should also discourage the inclusion of the see in the article title.

3645:". Cardinals on the overhand go by their forename and surname on Knowledge (XXG), and to distinguish them from someone else of the same name and surname they currently have the dab phase (bishop) not (cardinal). So surely by protocol they should have the dab phrase (cardinal) since they are equivalent to royal princes and have a higher status than an ordinary (arch)bishop? 3532:, etc. Note that whether the surname is present or not is not a factor in the practice of Mar becoming part of the first name. Neither is it relevant whether the first name (with the Mar) appears in the leading or trailing position in the full common name. In all cases, whether for `ancient' or `modern' figures, the Mar is an essential part of the name. 1434:

is only a guideline: there to guide. I think we may be losing sight of its purpose when we start moving hundreds of articles back and forth from "Joe Bloggs (bishop of Place)" to "Joe Bloggs (Bishop of Place)". And knowledgeable contributors shouldn't be pressured for diverging from it if they feel good reason, like giving a person more character (e.g.

93:. By my reading of the current naming conventions for saints he should be moved to plain "Bartholomew" since he is already the primary meaning of this name, but this ended inconclusively since some people thought he should be moved to "Saint Bartholomew". It might be worth re-examining the naming conventions for saints e.g. 1108: 1105: 1102: 949:

including the person's title in the article title in addition to their name, then we do it with correct capitalization and with a comma rather than brackets. I could give way on the comma if there was some good reason to, but I don't see any excuse for using capitalization which goes against good English usage.)--

1099: 1093: 1096: 1090: 575:

the way Knowledge (XXG) generally handles people's titles in article names (look at the dukes and so on). It would also set a consistent pattern that could be easily followed in other cases, like the abbots mentioned above - we shouldn't have a random mixture of conventions for different types of people.--

3693:

I see no need for such complicated phrases as "John Cardinal Smith, Archbishop of London" - even apart from the fact that such a usage would stir up disputes about whether it should instead be "Cardinal John Smith, Archbishop of London". The single word "cardinal" in parenthesis after the man's name

3689:

becoming cardinals. If that is so, "bishop" is still a valid way of distinguishing them from any that share the same name(s) - they are still bishops. Before the twentieth century, there were cardinals who not only were not bishops but were not even priests or deacons. Today, the few cardinals who

3486:

is a kind of title different from Bishop and President; it is different from Father and Sister in that it is never used with the surname; the former two can be used with surname (or informally with the first name, when the first name suffices for identification). It is also different from Pope, which

3046:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (clergy), tells that it does not include ‘’the naming convention of ancient historical church clergy at the higher level.’’ One such church is that of Saint Thomas Christians. Because it is not included in this article, an editor has changed the names of so many St.

2863:

We disambiguate brevet generals all the time as "general" (if needed) or "soldier", if not. The brevet implies "temporary." So if "archbishop" is needed, why not use it even though temporary for some individuals? No reason that highest rank can't be used IMO. But there's no reason to be upset over it

1143:

But our naming convention doesn't "combine it with a name" either, that's why it is in brackets. I am not proposing that we have "John Doe, bishop of Worcester", the guideline calls for "John Doe (bishop of Worcester)", which is a completely different thing. But I repeat, whether we should have "John

3543:

Indian religious naming conventions are of pivotal value for bishops of the Indian churches of St. Thomas, irrespective of whether they have traces of external influences including adherence to foreign inspired liturgies (which do not subsume the individuality of the Indian churches). The bishops of

3535:

Mar is a kind of title which is very strongly attached to the first name as part of a vocation. (Informally it is best to think of it as becoming part of the first name, but that is not completely precise.) There are not much examples in Western contexts except for Sir and classical knighthood (not

3384:

Sorry to bring to your notice that Mar Thoma I, Mar Thoma II and others are not Syriac bishops. They are not Syrians, they are Indians. They are not Syriac Christians.There is no “concrete historical evidence” to show that they were under Syrian rule at any time. They are Mar Thoma Nazranis whom you

2735:

Well, this is only for dab purposes. Smith (archbishop) can be more easily discerned from Smith (bishop). Yes, both are still bishops but we can now uniquely distinguish one from the other in the article. It's not meant as a final religious assignment. It could well be "Smith (York)" and "Smith (New

2054:

Of course there are advantages to having the uniform style. But are there any advantages to papal article uniformity that don't also apply to articles about patriarchs or European monarchs? Because the guidelines for those articles allow for exceptions to the formula when there is a much more common

1462:

bishop of X" (cf. what Deacon says above), without having to write the indefinite article in explicitly; but that "John Smith (Bishop of X)" is much more unambiguously a title held by the person, and for that reason is preferable as an article title. I have nothing to add, and so will say no more.

1433:

I think the guideline is useful as an aid (a guide!) for people not much interested in article titles to write articles without worrying about the matter ... such as is still very much useful on Knowledge (XXG) due to the fact that only a fraction of historical bishops have articles just now. But it

574:

bishops be moved to "X, Bishop of Y", only that those that are currently in the form "X (B/bishop of Y)" be standardized to "X, Bishop of Y". This would be a definite improvement, I think: it would be consistent with what is generally considered to be correct capitalization, and also consistent with

3620:

What is the correct dab phrase for cardinals? Most, but not all, cardinals have been consecrated as a bishop. A bishop is an order (as is a deacon or a priest). An archbishop, as we are told, is a not an order but a job title, and so is not to be used as a dab phrase. But what about cardinals? They

3561:

User Karnan is attempting again to engage in a mass move. It is totally inappropriate for him to defy consensus in this manner. I have returned a couple of the pages to their consensus-based names, without "Mar". Hopefully others can pitch in, too. Karnan must be made to understand that defiance of

3062:

I have removed what was said about this in the article, since I think its insertion was due to a misunderstanding. The insertion was about styles of address of this branch of Syriac Christians to be used in ordinary life, while the article is about the forms to be used in Knowledge (XXG) articles,

2225:

Also, I'm fairly sure that you were misreading Septentrionalis's comment, as he is in favor of the language change. There are only a few articles that might be affected by this change. And if you're correct that "Pope Name Number" is the common name for all of them, then there's nothing to stir up,

769:

There is no reason why abbots (and bishops) can't follow the general rule (disambiguation in bracjets) and have to use the exception used for royals and peers. Radulf II (Abbot of Kinloss) is equally clear as what you suggest, and follows the general article naming conventions. Why should we change

601:

Two things: not all abbots are inherently notable, in fact many are not, and should only be added to a list of abbots of Abbey X. As for the name, for the time before they had full names, they should follow the general naming conventions. A name like Randulf II (abbot of Abbeydale) works perfectly,

3187:

Mar or Mor may be omitted, but the case here is similar to Maran, Moran, or Moran Mor, etc. used on Patriarchs (e.g. Moran Mor Baselios Cleemis) is not simply a "His Holiness". Anyway, whether there is a "Mar" is not important, there must be some title indicate he is a Patriarch. So I think follow

3077:

Malankara Metropolitan's after the arrival of the Portuguese, were best known as Marthoma I, Marthoma II etc, without the differentiation 'Mar' and 'Thoma', which is in a way similar to Mother Theresa. Changing these names as per wiki rules, to Thoma I, Thoma II, would lead to confusion ( as they

2533:

Thank you for clarifying what is your concrete proposal, which I have taken the liberty of bolding. I find it better than the first formulation, but I still oppose it. The "wide range of readers" will be those interested in fields such as patristics. For the general reader, even early popes are

2513:

My reading of this discussion shows five editors in favor of a change to the guideline, one editor opposed, and one editor weakly opposed. That seems like fairly strong consensus as far as these discussions go. As for the content of the change, I would suggest using PMAnderson's proposed language,

2365:

I guess if there are only a handful of popes involved, we should have a discussion of each one purely on its merits (i.e. discounting any arguments from authority which would use this guideline as an authority), and see what results. Then we can simply reword the guideline if necessary to describe

1771:

I don't see this as being about what makes a pope notable. I see it only as about what people call them. The vast majority should stay at Pope XXXX, I'm sure - but because the papal title will also be the common name, not because they were only notable as a pope (although the two are often closely

1223:

Kotniski, your confusion is quite understandable and I suppose that Deacon could have expressed himself a little better here. The point which he is trying to get across, I think at least, is that the style 'X, bishop of Y' looks more official and so may attach too much weight to a single position,

963:

Not following you, sorry ... what's capitalization got to do with anything? Re my point, I've stated it already. Bishops (modern ones especially) switch titles too often while so few need the disambiguator that bishops as a category don't need to be treated as special and can be disambiguated like

3595:

The examples you gave of "Sir" and "Dom", which are attached to the first name of persons but which are not included in the title of Knowledge (XXG) articles about the persons, is sufficient refutation of your arguments about Knowledge (XXG) practice, which does not have to be the same as that in

3539:

There is no official dissertation that I know of on the naming conventions of religious figures (or, for that matter, people with a committed vocation) in a traditional Indian (or Eastern) context. In circles where these matter, the fact is trivial. Evidence can only be presented by examples. One

1208:

I still don't see what the objection is. Why is it bad to bring bishops (when their titles are mentioned) into line with other titled folk whose titles are mentioned? And in doing so, set a standard that could be applied to abbots or anyone else for whom this kind of disambiguation is found to be

732:

would reflect the format adopted for British peers, and one that it being proposed for European monarchs. If they have surnames (or patonymics), "Radulf Smith" or "Radulf Smith (abbot)" would be preferable. Abbots of whom we know little or nothing will not need articles; if the information will

3495:

Mar, in contrast, becomes part of the first name in a stronger sense than all these cases, and denotes commitment to a vocation rather than an office. If popes can have their titles prefixed to their article names, so can bishops in the Syriac naming system. It is also the practice in the Indian

3472:

already. I dissent with the judgement arrived at there, and also with the classification of the bishops as Syrian/Syriac (They follow the St. Thomas Christian tradition, which has had some inputs in the past from Syrian/Syriac, but remain distinct; some of them may have had connexions of various

2808:

Does Knowledge (XXG) have to be so pedantic when disambiguating someone such as Joe Bloggs (bishop) even though they held the title Archbishop of Somewhere and generally referred to as Archbishop Bloggs. If someone is known as an archbishop then they should disambiguated as such, i.e. Joe Bloggs

2750:

I have no strong views on this, but if a sperson never held a an ordinary diocesan see, but was promoted straight to archbishop, I would have thought it was appropriate to use "archbishop". In other areas, such as peerage, we nomrallyu have articles at the highest rank held. On the other hand,

948:

I don't follow - "Celtic number 8" is certainly not a title of this type, nor is "bishop", but "Bishop of Salford" is. (It has nothing to do with whether the title is the notable point - Martin's baronial title certainly isn't the most notable thing about him - but if, for whatever reason, we're

228:

Still seems a bit odd to me. An "archbishop of York" would be something like a "butcher of York" - an archbishop who comes from or lives in York. Which I suppose he was, but it's not really what we have in mind when we say he was "A/archibishop of York" - what we mean is that he held that title.

1554:

I'd like to propose adding a sentence allowing common English usage to the current guidance on titling articles about popes. This would bring this guideline into conformity with other biographical article guidance, as well as with broader Knowledge (XXG) policy favoring usage of common names in

1348:

Do you recognize the assertion of Esoglou that "bishop of London" implies we're talking about a bishop from London? To my mind "of" is not normally used like this in modern English, and if so it would require at least the indefinite article, and perhaps special punctuation or rephrasing like "a

1171:

The normal form should be John Doe (bishop): bishop is the normal disambiguator. If there are two John Does who have been bishops, I would suggest that the format for Brtish peerages should be used (but without an ordinal), as John Smith, Bishop of Worcester. This measn that the article title

989:

that bishops don't need to be treated as special - which is why I'm proposing that they not be treated as special, but brought into line with what we do with all other types of people with titles. It's not changing the fact that one in 10 are disambiguated differently from the others - only the

2600:

It seems that there is very little opposition to the proposal and, while I am still of the same opinion as before, I don't want to be pig-headed. Accordingly, provided that Kotniski's amendment ("Knowledge (XXG) may" instead of "Knowledge (XXG) should") is accepted, I withdraw my opposition.

2516:

Some early popes are better known to a wide range of readers by an epithet or cognomen than by name and number; when this is so, Knowledge (XXG) should title the article by the well-known name. Which name is to be used should be decided by consensus, after consultation of a variety of reliable

2486:

Do we have consensus? Scarcely. For what? The proposed text, "Some popes are clearly most commonly known in English by some other name which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include Saint Peter, Clement of Rome, etc." is

1124:

I didn't say it's not used to refer to particular persons; and none of your examples actually show the title combined with a name, but it's true they do show that the title is sometimes written with a small "b" (though I'm sure it's much more commonly written with a capital, especially when it

1798:

Well, Clement is Clement I to me perhaps because of my ignorance of early church and canon history. As a result of the latter he's just a pope to me. I'm not committed on this issue, but my general feeling is that there is some (if not much) benefit with standardized names and, popes being so

3491:

too may be noted here). (Sir is also a title, which is prefixed to the first name, even though there is a surname. But knights do not bear the title as a denotation of their committed vocations, at least in modern times. Dom is similar, and is not exclusively used for consecrated bishops.)

3331:

that he claims as a precedent does not apply. Instead, the names are two-word, first+last names that are probably no less common than the names of high officials in other denominations, whose WP pages are not adorned with titles. See, for example, names for American Roman Catholic Cardinals

1297:

This makes me cry. I don't have any opinion about whether (Bishop of London) is better or worse than (bishop of London), but over the last week my watchlist has been overrun with moves to the latter and moving them back now would be a nightmare ... there are lists, templates and so on to be

663:: we don't know the name of most of them, and the rest has no distinguishing features either. Perhaps with further research, an article can be written about one or two, but the others? It's really not hard to find many examples of abbeys where the abbots are not as such notable. 3144:

The guidelines are clear though regarding not using "Mar" in Syriac names whether bishops or Patriarchs. Mar is very similar to "His Holiness" for example. "Mar" means holy / saint and not part of a name. In Armenian Catholicoi patriarchs, we are using just first names: E.g.

2103:. Two others are possible (Clement of Rome and Gregory the Great); there is a stalled move request until the convention is clarified. Now it may be that all three of them will stay at Name Number under this convention; but that's no reason not to have the convention right. 1509:

is subject to frequent rename discussions; and has been renamed between all of those three names a number of times over the years. Therefore I have removed it as an example from this section. Examples should be reserved for unambiguous examples, which "Paul of Tarsus" is

3540:

would be hard pressed to find a single scholarly reference to many of the names quoted above without the titles. The practice of using the common name should settle the issue (and override the practice of avoiding the usual kind of titles like Professor, Doctor, etc.).

523:

Is this going to mean another round of bishop-moving? (whimpers). I really don't care where they are (although I lean towards no parenthesis), but can we decide and keep things in one place for a while? Seems like every time I turn around someone's moving poor Gerard

3443:

be made for very early leaders, near-mythic, which seemed to encorporate "Mar" with "Thoma" as in "Marthoma." A bit more "traditional" perhaps? But definitely not allowed for anyone from maybe 1600 on (an arbitrary selection). And probably not for anyone not named

2121:

is an obvious exception and need not be included in the series of "the successors of Saint Peter". As for "Clement of Rome", a name that is obviously commonly used by writers on patristics, I do not think that for the general public this is , to quote Dohn joe, a

553:

No, bishops are staying were they are (as far as I'm concerned anyways). The point I was making to Kotniski was that so many bishops are known by other names that this kind of system is pointless and counter-productive (which is the benefit of the current bishop

422:

for an awkward case. Abbots are inherently notable, but they are not in general as important as bishops (with exceptions like Monte Cassino, Iona, Clairvaux, Durham, as so on) and often little more than their first names are recorded (see, for instance, lists on

2773:

Your second point is excellent. Not trying to assign a title here, but merely trying to distinguish between "Nelson (naval officer)" and "Nelson (musician)". (In the first though, he is still a bishop. The "arch" is on top of the other, but it's not really

3751:

has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the

859:, I'm not proposing changing the ones which are known by alternative names or just disambiguated by "(bishop)", it's the ones that are disambiguated explicitly by title - and for such people, the "Name comma Title" system is absolutely standard already. 2451:

shows. We should be able to move articles when there is consensus about their subject's common name. FWIW, I do not find the Saint Peter argument convincing, as even though we consider him to have been pope, not even Catholics call him "Pope Peter".

2192:

defined as the successor of Saint Peter. Do you really need to be shown examples of authoritative RCC declarations that refer to the bishops (as a body) as the successors of the college of tha apostles, and the pope as the successor of Saint Peter?

1983:

I think the idea of limiting it to early popes would solve this problem in a better manner than including a sentence about Pope Gregory I. I think that including a specific example, which is contentious, into the policy page does not help matters.

885:

Listen, I understand you're proposal. But it doesn't matter ... because so few will need the disambiguator, bishops as a category don't need to be treated as special and can be disambiguated like other articles (e.g., as a random example, those at

650:

They wouldn't be inherintly notable when their abbey is not of much importance (every abbey is probably notable, but some are of very little interest for most of their history), and they have no other distinctions. An abbot like Jean Drommaire, of

3580:

Kindly understand that no one replied to the explanation I had posted here. The prior posts do not indicate any sort of conensus against the explanation. You may wish to revert the moves, but after due discussion and refutation of the arguments.

705:

and the like). That a group of twenty monks chosses one of them as their abbot, doesn't make him notable at all. That our guidelines on professional sporters are much too broad doesn't mean that we should ignore them for other people as well.

2146:

That aside, if you're right about the rest of them - and you may well be - then changing the language here would be harmless. But at least the language would be in line with other biographical guidelines. Doesn't that seem like a good thing?

1322:

You and me both. (beats head on a wall). Perhaps it is best to decide once and for all and only THEN make changes? I slightly lean towards "Bishop" rather than "bishop" but I'm not sure it's worth the huge pile of watchlist changes either..

3420:

don't have to be of Latin nationality. Can you perhaps suggest another word to use for the form of Christianity that uses "Mar" as a title for its bishops? If you can, Knowledge (XXG) might consider using that word instead of "Syriac".

838:

Not for bishops. Almost all bishops are known by other names, many have different sees of equal rank ... current system works. Perhaps revisit if the sovereigns change goes through and the X N, Y of Z system becomes more standard on wiki.

2410:

I'm perfectly willing to let that play out; we've expressed our opinions. But deliberately constructing a log-jam in which the article can't move until the guideline changes, and the guideline can't change until the article moves is just

1278:

I agree with Proteus. Describe John Smith as "bishop of London", and he could be a bishop simply associated with, perhaps merely living in London. Call him "Bishop of London", and you indicate that he holds or held that precise title.

321:

still have the capitals, so the guideline as written is not universally followed. I think it should be changed in two ways: to prescribe the capital, and to use commas instead of brackets (as with your suggested solution for the abbot

3385:

call saint Thomas Christians. I don’t think Knowledge (XXG) is authorised to change the names of common people or bishops of other churches, religions or countries. Please think twice if you are going to change and call them “Thoma”.

508:

bishops like that; only when we need disambiguation (possibly only when we need disambiguation from other bishops; though actually I'd prefer "Bishop of X" as a disambiguator rather than plain "(bishop)", even if the second was

1381:

Mine is that it's more a title, and we traditionally use title case for titles applied to people. But it's not been enough of a preference for me to fight the page moves, but if they all get moved back... (As an aside, I moved

2339:

Sorry, Septentrionalis, I should have understood that you do favour encouraging discussions about the titles of some articles, though only of a few. You had earlier said quite clearly that you supported the proposed change.

259:

Well, there is only ever one archbishop at any one time ... the idiom is solid and I don't think it would ever be understood in the butcher sense. But I'm not fussed about it. I'll leave it to others to comment and judge. :)

1945:? And in any event, I'm in favor of including examples; most guidelines here do so. And if one of the cited examples gets moved, then another example can be used in its stead; this has also been known to happen around here. 3596:

other contexts. It is clear that you have not won consensus and, while a move of some article for which you could produce reasons specific that article could perhaps be defended, a mass moving without consensus cannot.

1248:

This discussion seems to have petered out, but I'm very much opposed to the (seemingly made without discussion) edits to this guideline mandating "unnecessary" capitalisation. In British English, certainly, such capitals

3487:

is a title, yet prefixed to a (newly adopted) first name, and where the surname is not used. Note that the wikipaedia articles on popes add the title Pope in the respective article names (the convention for patriarchs

3348:). So I say let all of his moves be reverted now. Whether or not he or someone else wants to start a discussion about changing the naming convention, let such a discussion happen later, after the dust has cleared. -- 2273:, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, 1144:

Doe (Bishop of Worcester)" or "John Doe (bishop of Worcester)" is a discussion worth having, and one where I can see the arguments for both sides. I do oppose however any variation on "John Doe, Bishop of Worcester".

1567:). At least one editor has expressed a preference to change the title - but only if it is conformance with this guideline. So I thought I'd see if we could get this guideline in conformance with other guidelines. :) 1831:, but I see this as an analogous situation - and even if there are very few popes with a common name outside the convention, allowing those few to be at their common names is good, in my opinion. What do you think? 3748: 3479:

Varkey becomes Mar Varkey when Varkey Vithayathil becomes a bishop. Writing Mar Varkey Vithayathil (writing the correct first name) is not the same as writing Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil (prefixing a title).

2548:

I, on the other hand, support it (possibly with "Knowledge (XXG) may" instead of "Knowledge (XXG) should"). I'm sure "a wide range of readers" will be taken to mean the general reader, not a specialized group or

2381:

The problem with that is that there is a current discussion on one of them, and one editor has declared he will support if and only if this guideline is changed. That produces an explicitly circular situation.

984:

I'm sure you don't understand my proposal, since you couldn't possibly ask "what's capitalization got to do with anything" if you understood that the proposal is mainly about changing capitalization. Yes,

1894:

3047:

Thomas Christians clergy at the higher level. These changes made the titles ridiculus. So I am adding a new section - Bishops of St. Thomas Christians - to Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (clergy).

816:

Arguments as stated above (to conform to correct English usage - particularly in terms of the capital - and to conform to general Knowledge (XXG) treatment of personal titles - in terms of the capital

2736:

York)". All we are trying to do is distinguish them so no one refers to or updates the wrong article. Anything unique will do. I think archbishop (like Pope, who is also a bishop) should be allowed.

3473:

degrees with Chaldean Catholic/Antiochene Oriental Orthodox/Assyrian/Latin/Anglican/Protestant traditions, but that is not their overriding nature; their nature is St. Thomas Christian and Indian).

1784:?). But explicitly allowing for usage of common names in papal article titles would bring this guidance into line with other biographical article titling guidance, which I see as only beneficial. 1581:

or other name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English) and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include

1564: 3165:(actually Mar Dinkha IV Khanania) would be just Dinkha IV rather than Mar Dinkha IV. The basis is that Mar should be excluded regardless if we keep the family name or just stick to first names 2447:. I do think a clause about early popes would be good, so as to avoid Pope John Paul II/John Paul the Great issues. Having a rigid, Kantian naming convention is not helpful, as the history of 1635:"Some popes are clearly most commonly known in English by some other name which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title. Examples include 1398:

to keep the silly moving down on my watchlist... when I have to avoid such things, it tells me there isn't much consensus either way, and our "guideline" here is more trouble than its worth.

1110:, all were "bishop of Worcester". yes, examples with capital B can just as easily be found, but it is plainly not true that "bishop of Worcester" is not used to refer to particular persons. 1071:

No, but it is a title - you don't say "a bishop of Worcester" meaning that it's a bishop from or working in Worcester, you mean a bishop who has that particular title, Bishop of Worcester.--

186:

It says there "the correct formal name of an office can be treated as a proper noun" (and hence capitalized, as in "King of France"). Do these bishops' titles not fall into that category?--

906:

Yes, that's the whole point! Other articles are treated like this: either generic disambiguator in brackets (like those at Scott Brown), or "Name comma Title" (properly capitalized), like

1731:'s the only one I can think of who is more notable for non-papal activities than being pope. All other popes derive their chief notability from being pope. Current naming system works. 677:

They are still notable, irrespective of little knowledge. An abbot even of a small monastery even for a day was still a notable prelate, much more notable than a footballer playing for

2140:

First, I have to say it's rather tortured logic to hold that Saint Peter was not a pope. The first in a line is still part of that line. In the U.S., all presidents are successors to

3816: 3811: 3799: 76: 71: 59: 2197:

changing the language would stir up unnecessary conflicts. It would be like a mother telling her children not to shove bean up their noses while she was away. No, not a good thing.

1961:

In order to make clear what sort of names are meant; while (please note) not endorsing either side in that discussion. I fear that without any example, someone will be arguing that

1574: 362:

Those articles predate Francis' changes ... yes ... we need to sort out the capital thing with general feedback (I didn't choose the lower case system and couldn't care less).

1129:

combined with a name, and especially in a modern context - and as I say, doing it that way would be consistent with what Knowledge (XXG) does with other people with titles).--

2325:

changing the language here; I also support doing so in a way that will affect only a few of the articles on Popes. How this has been read as opposing a change is beyond me.

3711:

guideline does not give a dab phrase to distiguish them from others with the same name. I'd like a consensus dab phrase for cardinals. Complicated dab phrases, such as

2955:"Mar" is a title used in the Syrian tradition (both Oriental Orthodox and Catholic) for bishops and archbishops, it is not part of the ecclesiastic's name. The article 2655:

This is an example of how, for someone not "into" patristics, i.e., for the ordinary reader, "Pope Clement I" is a far more illuminating title than "Clement of Rome".

655:, is listed as being abbot for a year and a half between 1450 and 1452. As far as I can tell, nothing more is known about him or his reign. Why would he be notable? Is 470:

The form you suggest (looks like it would be Radulf II, Abbot of Kinloss, in this case) looks good. In fact I don't know why we don't use this form as a general rule (

3447:

I agree with Esoglou's definition of "Syriac." There are "Eastern Syriac" and "Western Syriac" but they are all nevertheless Indians, for purpose of this discussion.

2967:

is "For bishops and archbishops in the Western world, do not use their episcopal or archiepiscopal title in the article name unless necessary for disambiguation". For

2219:

concludes that he "is regarded as the first Pope by the Roman Catholic Church". This statement is repeated in the body of the article. St. Peter is number one in the

2864:

either, usually. A "Snodgrass Mericoff (cleric)" just as well suffices as "Snodgrass Mericoff {Cardinal-priest)", unless, Lord help us, there were two of them! :)

2055:

name. It has been recognized there that rigidly applying formulas is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Why should pope articles be treated differently?

3637:

they are always treated in protocol as equivalents of royal princes. Royal princes on Knowledge (XXG) are rarely, if at all, have the dab phase (prince). It is "

167: 3787: 121: 47: 17: 1530: 3024:

Thanks. This has been "troublesome" at times. Doesn't hurt to be explicit. I'm assuming the prefix "H.H." is covered elsewhere. Haven't seen it in titles.

2987:." For Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic bishops and archbishops, a similar practice should surely be followed. This concerns many articles, such as 910:. So it would be with bishops under my proposal -either the generic "(bishop)", or where that's insufficient, the correctly capitalized ", Bishop of X". -- 2226:

even if the moves were requested. So I'll ask again - doesn't putting the language of this guideline in line with other guidelines seem like a good idea?

3235:, etc. Please see that article's talk page. It is asserted that omitting the "Mar" leads to forms that are never actually used, and that must be wrong.-- 907: 2582:

should be retained as a redirect to it. As long as that practice is followed, it does not matter unduly at whcihn of these the article is located.

488:

In the case of bishops there are just too many known better with other names (and the office of bishop is usually taken by clerks rather than monks).

3509: 3501: 3708: 3488: 3279: 2968: 2964: 1660: 1626: 1608: 3747:

policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled:

1656:. What this proposal does is explicitly allow for other common names - which will usually be the name most people use to search for an article. 3513: 314: 2211:

I disagree with your definition of "pope". I always thought the definition was "bishop of Rome". And at the moment at least, Knowledge (XXG)

3505: 2459: 1991: 2886:

a prestige thing. A "George Washington (Virginian)" should serve just as well as a "George Washington (president)" if a dab were needed.

2396:

Even if that one editor did change his mind, there would still be more or less a tie in that discussion, not consensus for change.

2073:

more familiar to everyone than "William I of England" or "William II of Normandy" and "Charles I of Whatever", there are no Popes who

1616: 799: 628:

That's a strange assertion ... when would an abbot not be inherently notable? I imagine modern ones wouldn't be, but medieval ones?

3362:

I have done as agreed by the editors who have intervened here. User:Karnan was informed of the discussion, but did not intervene.

925: 3323:

Yes, I agree completely. They should all be reverted. Few if any of them are for people with common names in the sense that "Thoma

1611:: "...if there is already a well established name in English for a particular patriarch, use that format instead. For example, use 294:

Incidentally, the guideline was originally with the capitals. The "unnecesary capitals" were removed by Francis Schonken a year ago

3685:

Perhaps whatever cases with "bishop" Scrivener has in mind are instances of people who were thus distinguished in Knowledge (XXG)

2534:

more clearly identified by name and number, and redirects will automatically send the more learned to the general readers' page.

3401: 3661: 2641:. Saint Peter is fine and preferable. This is the first I've hear of "Clement of Rome" which redirects, BTW, to Pope Clement I." 2470:. Well, it's been over a week since the last comment. Do we have consensus to implement new language? Who wants to give it a go? 861:

All that's being proposed is that titles be correctly capitalized and that commas be used where parentheses are used at present,

2269:, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another." "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and 3006:

Since no comment has been made, I have made bold to insert in the project page an indication in line with the general rule of

1805: 1737: 1444: 1355: 1304: 1196: 1022: 974: 938: 896: 845: 757: 687: 634: 560: 494: 459: 368: 303: 266: 218: 176: 1692:

proposal, with no opinion given on whether Clement falls under it or not. The "Saint Peter" argument is fairly convincing.--

3250:

Seems that indeed the "Mar" is required here; the articles have been moved, and I've updated the guideline accordingly.--

681:

even though the latter exists today. Not much room for argument here, though you are of course entitled to your opinion.

887: 437:

There are many famous heads of monastic houses who are better known or are saints (who have their own guidelines), e.g.

3665: 1629:: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion." 1391: 1387: 811: 803: 2574:-- The norm should be that articles are in standard form. Ther will be some exceptions, but if we have the article at 1089:

don't say, I do. It is a bishop who has the seat of Worcester, one in a long list of such bishops. Take a look at e.g.

729: 474:, instead of using brackets) - it would also be consistent with the way most royals and nobles' articles are titled.-- 431: 313:

Well, in that diff and the next one he's just removed some examples that don't correspond with the guideline. Indeed,

148: 144: 3744: 2916:

as at present? Or should it be a dab page? There are various Popes Peter of Alexandria, as well as an article titled

3778: 3761: 3728: 3703: 3680: 3654: 3605: 3590: 3571: 3555: 3456: 3430: 3394: 3371: 3357: 3314: 3295: 3259: 3244: 3218: 3182: 3138: 3091: 3072: 3056: 3033: 3019: 3000: 2944: 2929: 2895: 2873: 2854: 2818: 2801: 2783: 2760: 2745: 2729: 2690: 2664: 2650: 2631: 2610: 2591: 2558: 2543: 2528: 2508: 2479: 2462: 2433: 2405: 2391: 2375: 2349: 2334: 2290: 2235: 2206: 2179: 2156: 2135: 2112: 2094: 2064: 2049: 1994: 1978: 1954: 1936: 1914: 1905:

This is chiefly to avoid committing this page to any examples, since all three of them are at least controversial.

1887: 1840: 1810: 1793: 1764: 1742: 1718: 1701: 1683: 1544: 1519: 1472: 1449: 1406: 1360: 1331: 1309: 1288: 1272: 1262: 1254: 1233: 1218: 1201: 1190:

This is just a restatement of the suggestion above. Those of us who oppose it have commented already (just above).

1181: 1153: 1138: 1119: 1080: 1062: 1027: 999: 979: 958: 943: 919: 901: 872: 850: 829: 779: 762: 742: 715: 692: 672: 639: 619: 584: 565: 532: 518: 499: 483: 464: 391: 373: 331: 308: 271: 238: 223: 195: 181: 160: 133: 110: 38: 1815:

I completely agree that having a standard or convention is very important - that way we know what to choose among

1258: 929: 3676: 3517: 3390: 3052: 2725: 1800: 1732: 1439: 1350: 1299: 1191: 1017: 1009: 1005: 969: 933: 891: 840: 752: 682: 629: 555: 489: 454: 363: 298: 261: 213: 171: 2704:

and made a clarification on the use of {archbishop} as a paranthetical dab. My argument for this is as follows:

1875: 1013: 968:

is just odd. I'd only favour the latter for bishops if it were going to be used by the vast majority of bishops.

3660:

My instinct would be to dab John Cardinal Smith, Archbishop of London from John Smith, Archbishop of London as

2710: 2678: 2456: 2277:, as its head." "There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by 1988: 1620: 471: 424: 1004:

No, I don't follow why you are mentioning capitalization when I've already said I don't care whether the form

3197: 1663:

section, whose second-to-last sentence would read something like: "Popes who are also saints are given their

3724: 3650: 3469: 2988: 2850: 2814: 2756: 2587: 1697: 1177: 738: 656: 90: 1799:

uniquely classified in our culture, of the present opinion that using the same form for all is preferable.

2842: 2686: 1903:

is to be used should be decided by consensus, after consultation of a variety of reliable English sources.

1824: 318: 106: 2794:

Just a point: Roman Catholic archbishops, unlike Anglican archbishops, remain archbishops on retirement.

209: 3212: 3132: 3087: 2495:) which identifies them unambiguously". The most unambiguous way of identifying them is undoubtedly as 1871: 1586: 1538: 1253:

necessary. I'm not much bothered either way whether the disambiguation for identically named bishops is

733:

provide no more than a stub, it would be better to incorporate that little in an article on the abbey.

3416:". The members of these churches don't have to be either Syrian or Indian, just as the members of the 3305:" case as a precedent, although the same considerations don't apply in his other cases as did there).-- 3270:

I notice that User:Karnan has moved a whole series of articles to make them begin with "Mar". See his

1828: 3078:

are never heard of in that form) as well do hamper the 'search' possibilities. This was the concern of

2016:. Whatever about the names that other sources give to popes, there are obvious advantages in having, 965: 751:

In practice, I would probably agree that it would often be better to keep such abbots in abbot lists.

3757: 3634: 3529: 3386: 3079: 3048: 2429: 2387: 2330: 2175: 2108: 1974: 1910: 1883: 1760: 1820: 924:

An episcopal title is not like a baronial title, where the title itself is the notable point. It's

3567: 3405: 3353: 3306: 3251: 3236: 3193: 3178: 3170: 2936: 2921: 2550: 2453: 2367: 2249:

so as not to encourage unnecessary discussions. Whether that is his idea or not, it is mine. The

1985: 1928: 1710: 1210: 1130: 1072: 991: 950: 911: 864: 821: 678: 576: 510: 475: 450: 383: 323: 230: 187: 152: 129: 1827:. I just don't think that an inflexible rule benefits the readers. I don't know how you feel about 3720: 3646: 3452: 3310: 3255: 3240: 3029: 2976: 2940: 2925: 2891: 2869: 2846: 2810: 2779: 2752: 2741: 2646: 2627: 2583: 2554: 2524: 2475: 2371: 2231: 2152: 2060: 1950: 1932: 1836: 1789: 1714: 1693: 1679: 1403: 1328: 1214: 1173: 1134: 1076: 995: 954: 915: 868: 825: 734: 580: 529: 514: 479: 387: 327: 234: 191: 156: 94: 1863: 1648:

You'll notice we already have one rather significant example of common-name usage among popes -

1386:

today, as I've been unable to turn up that usage in any reliable source for him, but instead of

1659:

If people like and adopt this proposal, the only other change to the guideline would be in the

3699: 3601: 3426: 3367: 3291: 3068: 3015: 2996: 2980: 2798: 2682: 2660: 2606: 2575: 2539: 2504: 2401: 2345: 2286: 2202: 2141: 2131: 2090: 2045: 1900: 1781: 1709:, certainly, guidelines shouldn't be a barrier to the use of common names as article titles.-- 1497:"Paul of Tarsus" is offered as an example in the "Saints" section. The problem is the article 1468: 1383: 1284: 1269: 102: 2424:

Let's set a reasonable guideline - and if there is no consensus that Clement meets it, fine.

793: 3586: 3551: 3328: 3201: 3121: 3083: 2241:

I think that, at this stage, we are perhaps going around in circles and it's time to stop.

1969:(as it must be, any hit for the first is also a hit for the second), and so it should move. 1582: 1534: 1515: 1502: 1435: 1395: 1229: 660: 652: 446: 419: 3345: 3007: 2701: 1854:. I would also accept another sentence making clear that this is not intended to provoke a 702: 3753: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3409: 3274:

One of the articles he has moved is the very example given here of an article that should

2425: 2383: 2326: 2171: 2104: 1970: 1906: 1879: 1777: 1756: 1640: 1612: 1594: 1560: 2126:

more common name. The same holds for Gregory the Great - and for John Paul the Great!

697:

Not much room for argument? Your statements are your opinion, mine are supported by our

570:

Except the "current bishop system" seems to be a random mixture. I'm not proposing that

143:

According to this convention, titles "Bishop of" (and presumably "Archbishop of", as at

3563: 3349: 3174: 3166: 2984: 2579: 2448: 2021: 1896: 1598: 1556: 1498: 1149: 1115: 1058: 775: 711: 668: 615: 125: 98: 1874:), this should be about the use of cognomens, which don't need Pope (as we don't have 698: 3673: 3525: 3521: 3448: 3162: 3105: 3025: 2917: 2887: 2865: 2775: 2737: 2722: 2642: 2623: 2520: 2471: 2227: 2220: 2148: 2056: 1946: 1832: 1785: 1748: 1675: 1399: 1324: 607: 525: 3231:

Connected with the last two threads, we need to sort out the names for the articles

2069:

Because, unlike "William the Conqueror" and "Charlemagne", for whom these names are

3695: 3597: 3422: 3417: 3363: 3287: 3064: 3011: 2992: 2795: 2656: 2602: 2535: 2500: 2397: 2341: 2282: 2198: 2127: 2086: 2041: 1816: 1464: 1280: 1266: 3719:

is sufficient. So far the consensus leans towards the basic (cardinal) dab phrase.

3333: 3108:, are the Patriarch of the Church of the East. So I think such case should follow 3786:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3582: 3547: 3497: 3341: 3232: 2913: 2216: 2188:

The US President is not defined as the successor of George Washington. The Pope

2118: 2100: 2099:

There is at least one: Pope Peter I (trad. d. 64) is decidedly better known as

2029: 1867: 1773: 1728: 1649: 1636: 1590: 1511: 1225: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3743:

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of

2170:

having exactly that discussion at the two or three talk-pages where it matters.

212:. It is Gerard, an archbishop of York, rather than Gerard, Archbishop of York. 3439:"Mar" generally should not be used in titles or as an honorific. An allowance 3400:

By "Syriac" I don't mean "Syrian". I mean "Syriac" in the sense in which the

3158: 2906: 2826: 2257:, that "Catholics recognize the Pope as a successor to Saint Peter". The old 2040:, a pope, giving good grounds for not including that article in the series.) 1653: 1602: 1506: 1394:, either of which would have been my preferred way of disambiguation, I used 792:

Here's my proposal, then, in a new section for clarity: where the guideline (

229:(Conceivably someone could be given that title without ever going to York.)-- 151:. Is there a reason for this? I would expect such titles to be capitalized.-- 3154: 1145: 1111: 1054: 771: 707: 664: 611: 603: 3468:

in particular and Indian religious figures in general have been articulated

1570:

Here's how some other guidance (including from this very guideline) reads:

427:). It's hard to think of anything that can work other than the following: 3670: 3150: 2719: 1578: 1349:

bishop, of London ". But my English isn't necessarily representative ...

101:

is already the primary meaning of "Saint Paul", should he be moved there?

3404:

and similar churches mean it, in other words, the different churches of

2882:

notability here. These people are already notable, supposedly. So it is

3749:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice

2487:

certainly contentious. It is not verifiably true that "some popes are

442: 438: 1555:

article titles. The impetus for this is the current move request from

208:

Well, the dab is category rather than title, following the fashion of

3146: 2838: 2834: 2830: 1862:

discussion, which would be silly. Like the corresponding sentence on

1563:, which is the name by which he is clearly most commonly known. (See 2935:

Well, in the absence of objections, I've changed it to a dab page.--

1575:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns

1941:

If we're worried about examples, why include one? Why not just say

1780:(if that is indeed his common name) are the only exceptions (maybe 1645:(assuming others agree that "Clement of Rome" is his common name). 3301:

Yes, I would have thought so (he seems to be using the "Mar Thoma

2963:"placed before the Christian name". The Knowledge (XXG) rule for 168:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles_of_people

990:

typographical appearance of the disambiguator is to be changed.--

97:

has to be there to distinguish him from other Saint Ulrichs, but

2250: 2212: 2085:

more common name") by some name other than "Pope Name Number".

3536:

the modern version where a sense of vocation is lost) and Dom.

1747:

Clement receives his chief notability from being the author of

1098:

or many more similar ones. If you want it combined with names:

3765: 3483: 3413: 3282:. Should his edits be reverted, at least until a change will 2956: 964:

other articles (as Scott Brown). Having one in ten bishops as

25: 2144:. Does that mean that he was not really a president himself? 1298:

re-updated, not to mention the work. Is it such a big deal?

1529:

Editors here will be interested in a discussion ongoing at

2036:

of Saint Peter, as they are, Saint Peter himself was not,

418:

We as yet lack guidelines for heads of monasteries. See

3337: 3271: 2751:

admirals seem often to be deabbed as "naval officer".

2491:

most commonly known in English by some name (other than

295: 3489:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (clergy)#Patriarchs

1609:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (clergy)#Patriarchs

1454:

My point is precisely that "John Smith (bishop of X)"

602:

if there are multiple randulf II's. For someone like

453:, and so on. We need to consider this too. Thoughts? 2677:

What about buildings named after other clergy? Like

1943:

Which name to use should be decided by consensus...

1633:My proposed addition would go something like this: 1667:name, with a redirect from the forms with "Saint" 1627:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (clergy)#Saints 1012:is used. Your proposal is about turning both into 120:For a discussion of the title "rabbi", please see 2983:. In other cases name and surname are used, as in 2959:states, citing reliable sources, that "Mar" is a 2514:without the specific reference to Pope Gregory: 122:Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Hebrew)#Rabbi 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (clergy) 3286:be made in the naming conventions guidelines? 1531:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Naming conventions (Indic) 147:) should not be capitalized- i.e. it should be 3280:WP:Naming conventions (clergy)#Syriac bishops 2681:. Should it contain a period (.) after "Br"? 8: 3496:system across religions and churches, e.g., 2281:." Many more could be added. Good night. 3562:consensus in this way is inappropriate. -- 3063:especially in the titles of the articles. 2841:). The Catholic Church has three orders of 3713:John Smith (Cardinal Archbishop of London) 3662:John Smith (Cardinal Archbishop of London) 1669:when their common name is their papal name 908:Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn 3643:Prince Whoever, Duke/Earl/etc of Wherever 3266:Mass moving of articles on Syriac bishops 2366:the consensus (or possibly lack of it).-- 2032:is irrelevant, since if popes are seen as 89:There was a recent move discussion about 3510:Geevarghese Mar Dionysius of Vattasseril 3502:Punnathara Mar Dionysious (Mar Thoma XI) 2969:Eastern Orthodox archbishops and bishops 863:nothing more revolutionary than that. -- 3161:. Similarly then, what we have here as 1493:Removing "Paul of Tarsus" as an example 794:WP:NCCL#Western bishops and archbishops 3784:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3514:Gheevarghese Mar Gregorios of Parumala 3327:" is a common name. The discussion at 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2622:. The changes have been implemented. 315:Thomas de Rossy (Bishop of the Isles) 7: 3506:Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious II 3104:Some Syriac (head) bishops, such as 2166:And changing the language here will 414:Abbots and priors (and commendators) 3412:, the language that gave the word " 1772:related). It very well may be that 1615:as the main title of article, with 1533:in regards that proposed guideline. 3476:The paragraphs are repeated here. 1617:Patriarch John I of Constantinople 800:William Turner (bishop of Salford) 24: 3666:John Smith (Archbishop of London) 1392:Baldwin (archbishop of Canterbury 1388:Baldwin (Arcbishop of Canterbury) 1261:, but it definitely shouldn't be 926:Scott Brown (Scottish footballer) 812:William Turner, Bishop of Salford 804:William Turner, Bishop of Salford 3769: 3739:RFC – WP title decision practice 3668:, with a hatnote on the latter. 3402:Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church 3118:#Western bishops and archbishops 3042:Bishops of St. Thomas Christians 29: 3408:, whose liturgical language is 2965:Western bishops and archbishops 3202: 3173:) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 3122: 3073:07:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC) 3057:19:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 1234:22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1219:17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1202:12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1182:12:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1154:13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1139:13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1120:12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1081:12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1063:12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1028:12:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 1000:12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 980:12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 959:10:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 944:17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 920:14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 902:13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 873:13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 851:12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 830:09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 780:07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 763:18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 743:16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 716:07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 693:15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 673:13:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 640:13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 620:12:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 585:08:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 566:02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 533:01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 519:15:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 504:Sorry, I didn't mean to title 500:15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 484:15:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 465:15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 392:09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 374:02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 332:15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 309:15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 3762:17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3729:22:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 3704:20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 3681:19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 3655:17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 3457:20:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 3431:19:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 3395:17:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 3372:10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 3358:00:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 3315:18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 3296:14:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 2028:changing it. (The article on 1263:John Smith (bishop of London) 1255:John Smith (Bishop of London) 1016:, and this is what I oppose. 272:18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 239:18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 224:18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 196:18:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 182:17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 161:05:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3715:, are unneccessary. A basic 3606:07:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 3591:05:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 3572:05:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 3556:09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 3466:St. Thomas Christian bishops 3464:My opinions on the names of 3260:18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 3245:07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC) 2673:Buildings named after saints 2519:Does that seem about right? 2243:Septentrionalis seems to be 1520:23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 1259:John Smith, Bishop of London 930:Scott Brown, Celtic number 8 888:Scott Brown (disambiguation) 857:THIS ISN'T ABOUT ALL BISHOPS 379: 3219:16:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 3183:15:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 3139:15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 3092:03:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 2829:is a job and not an order ( 1010:Joe Bloggs (bishop of Seat) 1006:Joe Bloggs (Bishop of Seat) 730:Radulf II, Abbot of Kinloss 432:Radulf II, Abbot of Kinloss 149:Gerard (archbishop of York) 145:Gerard (Archbishop of York) 3835: 3639:Prince Whoever of Wherever 3336:(see also my justification 1876:King William the Conqueror 1545:18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC) 1014:Joe Bloggs, Bishop of Seat 610:, nothing more is needed. 111:00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 3518:Swami Dayananda Saraswati 3034:02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 3020:11:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3001:11:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2665:07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2215:. The first paragraph of 2117:I already indicated that 1674:So, that's it. Thoughts? 472:Gerard, Archishop of York 139:Capitals for (Arch)bishop 3635:princes of the churchand 3008:WP:NCP#Titles and styles 2945:07:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 2930:07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 2912:Should this redirect to 2896:21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 2874:21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 2855:20:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) 2819:14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) 2802:18:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 2784:18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 2761:17:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 2746:16:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 2730:13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC) 2691:07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 2679:Br. Andrew Gonzalez Hall 2651:17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 2632:18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 2611:17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 2592:17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 2559:13:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 2544:19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 2529:18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 2509:07:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 2480:05:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 2463:14:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 2434:23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 2406:20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 2392:19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 2376:08:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 2350:07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 2335:04:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 2195:As Septentrionalis says, 2024:is producing a majority 1995:15:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 1841:23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 1811:21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 1751:; as such, he is called 1621:John I of Constantinople 1577:: "Some monarchs have a 1473:19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1450:16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1407:16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1361:15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1332:15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1310:15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1289:14:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 1273:14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 425:Template:Scottish Church 134:15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3340:, for reverting one of 3198:Mar Patriarch Dinkha IV 2989:Mar Augustine Kandathil 2975:is often used, as with 2291:20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2236:20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2207:19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2180:19:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2157:19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2136:18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2113:18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2095:18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2065:18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2050:18:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 1979:18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 1955:17:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 1937:09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 1915:18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 1888:03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 1794:17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1765:03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 1743:16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1719:16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 1702:18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 1684:17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 91:Bartholomew the Apostle 3278:begin with "Mar": see 2247:changing the language, 2213:seems to agree with me 2075:for the general public 2018:within Knowledge (XXG) 855:No, how many times :( 657:William de Louteburghe 319:Roger (Bishop of Ross) 3782:of past discussions. 3717:John Smith (cardinal) 3272:recent contributions. 3192:, his name should be 3082:, which I too share. 2878:Remember, we are not 2323:very strongly support 2259:Catholic Encyclopedia 1872:William the Conqueror 1671:." (changes in bold) 1587:William the Conqueror 808:, change it to read: 42:of past discussions. 3530:Maulana Mohammad Ali 3116:, as we don't apply 1965:is less common than 1825:Pope Paul the Second 1801:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1733:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1440:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1351:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1300:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1192:Deacon of Pndapetzim 1018:Deacon of Pndapetzim 970:Deacon of Pndapetzim 934:Deacon of Pndapetzim 892:Deacon of Pndapetzim 841:Deacon of Pndapetzim 753:Deacon of Pndapetzim 683:Deacon of Pndapetzim 630:Deacon of Pndapetzim 556:Deacon of Pndapetzim 490:Deacon of Pndapetzim 455:Deacon of Pndapetzim 364:Deacon of Pndapetzim 299:Deacon of Pndapetzim 262:Deacon of Pndapetzim 214:Deacon of Pndapetzim 172:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3694:should be enough. 3621:have three orders, 3616:Cardinal dab phrase 3406:Syriac Christianity 3194:Patriarch Dinkha IV 2711:a recent discussion 1550:Pope article titles 679:Kettering_Town_F.C. 451:Waltheof of Melrose 210:Joe Bloggs (bishop) 3120:to those popes. –– 2977:Anthony of Sourozh 1927:That seems good.-- 1892:Proposed wording: 1525:Related discussion 1458:be understood as " 95:Ulrich of Augsburg 3822: 3821: 3794: 3793: 3788:current talk page 3745:WP:Article Titles 3709:WP:NCWC–Cardinals 2981:Gabriel of Comane 2973:{name} of {place} 2809:(archbishop). -- 2576:Gregory the Great 2432: 2390: 2333: 2279:Peter's successor 2275:Peter's successor 2271:Peter's successor 2267:Peter's successor 2178: 2142:George Washington 2111: 1977: 1963:Pope Benedict XVI 1913: 1901:Gregory the Great 1886: 1860:Pope John Paul II 1808: 1782:Gregory the Great 1763: 1740: 1543: 1447: 1384:Baldwin of Exeter 1358: 1307: 1199: 1025: 977: 941: 899: 848: 760: 690: 659:notable? Look at 637: 563: 497: 462: 371: 306: 269: 221: 179: 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3826: 3808: 3796: 3795: 3773: 3772: 3766: 3329:Talk:Mar_Thoma_I 3215: 3208: 3204: 3135: 3128: 3124: 2517:English sources. 2497:Pope Name Number 2493:Pope Name Number 2428: 2386: 2329: 2261:said: "The title 2174: 2107: 1973: 1909: 1882: 1804: 1759: 1736: 1583:Alfred the Great 1541: 1537: 1503:Paul the Apostle 1443: 1436:Baldwin of Forde 1396:Baldwin of Forde 1354: 1303: 1195: 1021: 973: 966:X Y, Bishop of Z 937: 895: 844: 756: 686: 661:Abbot of Saddell 653:Beaurepart Abbey 633: 559: 493: 458: 447:Turgot of Durham 420:Radulf (d. 1220) 367: 302: 265: 217: 175: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3834: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3804: 3770: 3741: 3631:cardinal deacon 3627:cardinal priest 3623:cardinal bishop 3618: 3410:Syriac language 3387:Neduvelilmathew 3268: 3229: 3217: 3213: 3206: 3137: 3133: 3126: 3114:#Syriac bishops 3102: 3080:Neduvelilmathew 3049:Neduvelilmathew 3044: 2953: 2910: 2825:Apparently, an 2698: 2675: 2460:(contributions) 2426:Septentrionalis 2384:Septentrionalis 2327:Septentrionalis 2172:Septentrionalis 2105:Septentrionalis 2081:better known (" 1992:(contributions) 1971:Septentrionalis 1907:Septentrionalis 1880:Septentrionalis 1866:(which permits 1778:Clement of Rome 1757:Septentrionalis 1753:Clement of Rome 1641:Clement of Rome 1613:John Chrysostom 1595:Louis the Pious 1561:Clement of Rome 1552: 1539: 1527: 1495: 1246: 790: 416: 141: 118: 87: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3832: 3830: 3820: 3819: 3814: 3809: 3802: 3792: 3791: 3774: 3740: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3691: 3617: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3575: 3574: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3445: 3434: 3433: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3318: 3317: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3228: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3211: 3131: 3101: 3100:Syriac bishops 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3043: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 2985:Kallistos Ware 2952: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2909: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2858: 2857: 2822: 2821: 2805: 2804: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2716: 2715: 2697: 2694: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2635: 2634: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2595: 2594: 2580:Pope Gregory I 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2483: 2482: 2465: 2454:carl bunderson 2449:Pope Clement I 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2253:article says, 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2022:Pope Clement I 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1986:carl bunderson 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1897:Pope Gregory I 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1821:Paul II (pope) 1768: 1767: 1721: 1704: 1631: 1630: 1624: 1623:as redirects." 1606: 1599:Henry the Lion 1557:Pope Clement I 1551: 1548: 1526: 1523: 1499:Paul of Tarsus 1494: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1292: 1291: 1245: 1244:Capitalisation 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1205: 1204: 1185: 1184: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1066: 1065: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 878: 877: 876: 875: 810:"use the form 789: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 766: 765: 746: 745: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 645: 644: 643: 642: 623: 622: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 509:sufficient).-- 435: 434: 415: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 201: 200: 199: 198: 140: 137: 117: 114: 99:Paul of Tarsus 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3831: 3818: 3815: 3813: 3810: 3807: 3803: 3801: 3798: 3797: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3780: 3775: 3768: 3767: 3764: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3750: 3746: 3738: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3721:Scrivener-uki 3718: 3714: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3647:Scrivener-uki 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3615: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3531: 3527: 3526:Narayana Guru 3523: 3522:Sri Aurobindo 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3493: 3490: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3474: 3471: 3467: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3382: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3344:'s moves per 3343: 3339: 3335: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3226: 3220: 3216: 3210: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163:Mar Dinkha IV 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3130: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106:Mar Dinkha IV 3099: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3041: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918:Pope Peter II 2915: 2908: 2905: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2847:Scrivener-uki 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811:Scrivener-uki 2807: 2806: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2753:Peterkingiron 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2713: 2712: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2703: 2695: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2672: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2637: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2618: 2617: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2584:Peterkingiron 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2569: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2466: 2464: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2442: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2246: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2222: 2221:List of popes 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2191: 2187: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2120: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038:in that sense 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2012: 2011: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1902: 1898: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1807: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749:First Clement 1746: 1745: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1727:... I think. 1726: 1722: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1694:SarekOfVulcan 1691: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1672: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1646: 1644: 1642: 1638: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1549: 1547: 1546: 1542: 1536: 1532: 1524: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1492: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1362: 1357: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1243: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1206: 1203: 1198: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174:Peterkingiron 1170: 1167: 1166: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1029: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 997: 993: 988: 983: 982: 981: 976: 971: 967: 962: 961: 960: 956: 952: 947: 946: 945: 940: 935: 931: 927: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 904: 903: 898: 893: 889: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 853: 852: 847: 842: 837: 834: 833: 832: 831: 827: 823: 820:the comma).-- 819: 815: 813: 807: 805: 801: 798:"use the form 795: 787: 781: 777: 773: 768: 767: 764: 759: 754: 750: 749: 748: 747: 744: 740: 736: 735:Peterkingiron 731: 727: 726: 717: 713: 709: 704: 700: 696: 695: 694: 689: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 649: 648: 647: 646: 641: 636: 631: 627: 626: 625: 624: 621: 617: 613: 609: 608:Conrad Tanner 605: 600: 599: 586: 582: 578: 573: 569: 568: 567: 562: 557: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 534: 531: 527: 522: 521: 520: 516: 512: 507: 503: 502: 501: 496: 491: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 468: 467: 466: 461: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 433: 430: 429: 428: 426: 421: 413: 393: 389: 385: 381: 378:Continued at 377: 376: 375: 370: 365: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 333: 329: 325: 320: 316: 312: 311: 310: 305: 300: 296: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 273: 268: 263: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 240: 236: 232: 227: 226: 225: 220: 215: 211: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 197: 193: 189: 185: 184: 183: 178: 173: 170:is relevant. 169: 165: 164: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 138: 136: 135: 131: 127: 124:. Thank you. 123: 115: 113: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 84: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3805: 3783: 3777: 3742: 3716: 3712: 3686: 3669: 3642: 3638: 3619: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3528:(a suffix), 3494: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3465: 3463: 3440: 3418:Latin Church 3383: 3381:Hi Esoglou, 3380: 3324: 3302: 3283: 3275: 3269: 3230: 3189: 3117: 3113: 3112:rather than 3109: 3103: 3045: 2972: 2960: 2954: 2911: 2883: 2879: 2718: 2717: 2708: 2699: 2683:Moray An Par 2676: 2638: 2619: 2572:Weak support 2571: 2515: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2467: 2444: 2364: 2322: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2244: 2242: 2224: 2194: 2189: 2167: 2145: 2123: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2037: 2033: 2025: 2017: 2013: 1967:Benedict XVI 1966: 1962: 1942: 1893: 1859: 1856:John Paul II 1855: 1851: 1817:Pope Paul II 1752: 1724: 1706: 1689: 1673: 1668: 1664: 1658: 1647: 1634: 1632: 1569: 1553: 1528: 1496: 1459: 1455: 1250: 1247: 1168: 1126: 1086: 1050: 986: 860: 856: 835: 817: 809: 802:rather than 797: 791: 701:guidelines ( 571: 505: 436: 417: 142: 119: 103:PatGallacher 88: 65: 43: 37: 3776:This is an 3633:. They are 3498:Mar Thoma I 3342:User:Karnan 3233:Mar Thoma I 3190:#Patriarchs 3110:#Patriarchs 3084:Credit Risk 2914:Saint Peter 2774:important). 2696:Archbishops 2217:Saint Peter 2119:Saint Peter 2101:Saint Peter 2030:Saint Peter 1868:Charlemagne 1829:WP:COGNOMEN 1774:Saint Peter 1729:Saint Peter 1725:Weak Oppose 1650:Saint Peter 1637:Saint Peter 1591:Charlemagne 1535:LeadSongDog 1209:required?-- 36:This is an 3754:Mike Cline 3159:Karekin II 2971:"the form 2907:Pope Peter 2827:archbishop 2430:PMAnderson 2388:PMAnderson 2331:PMAnderson 2255:inter alia 2176:PMAnderson 2109:PMAnderson 2034:successors 1975:PMAnderson 1911:PMAnderson 1884:PMAnderson 1761:PMAnderson 1654:Pope Peter 1603:Skanderbeg 1565:this ngram 1540:come howl! 1507:Saint Paul 1169:Suggestion 3817:Archive 4 3812:Archive 3 3806:Archive 2 3800:Archive 1 3564:Presearch 3350:Presearch 3227:Mar Thoma 3175:werldwayd 3167:werldwayd 3155:Karekin I 2880:assigning 2843:cardinals 2702:been bold 2549:groups.-- 2168:enfourage 2079:decidedly 728:The form 604:Thurcytel 322:below).-- 166:Methinks 126:Debresser 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3449:Student7 3444:"Thoma." 3307:Kotniski 3252:Kotniski 3237:Kotniski 3151:Vazgen I 3026:Student7 2937:Kotniski 2922:Kotniski 2888:Student7 2866:Student7 2776:Student7 2738:Student7 2643:Student7 2624:Dohn joe 2551:Kotniski 2521:Dohn joe 2472:Dohn joe 2368:Kotniski 2228:Dohn joe 2149:Dohn joe 2057:Dohn joe 1947:Dohn joe 1929:Kotniski 1864:WP:NCROY 1833:Dohn joe 1786:Dohn joe 1711:Kotniski 1676:Dohn joe 1579:cognomen 1400:Ealdgyth 1325:Ealdgyth 1211:Kotniski 1131:Kotniski 1085:Perhaps 1073:Kotniski 992:Kotniski 951:Kotniski 912:Kotniski 865:Kotniski 822:Kotniski 577:Kotniski 554:system). 526:Ealdgyth 511:Kotniski 476:Kotniski 384:Kotniski 382:below.-- 380:#Bishops 324:Kotniski 231:Kotniski 188:Kotniski 153:Kotniski 3779:archive 3696:Esoglou 3598:Esoglou 3423:Esoglou 3364:Esoglou 3288:Esoglou 3284:perhaps 3065:Esoglou 3012:Esoglou 2993:Esoglou 2796:Proteus 2700:I have 2657:Esoglou 2639:Comment 2620:Comment 2603:Esoglou 2536:Esoglou 2501:Esoglou 2489:clearly 2468:Comment 2445:Support 2398:Esoglou 2342:Esoglou 2283:Esoglou 2245:against 2199:Esoglou 2128:Esoglou 2087:Esoglou 2042:Esoglou 2026:against 1852:Support 1707:Support 1690:Support 1643:, etc." 1605:, etc." 1465:Esoglou 1281:Esoglou 1267:Proteus 987:I agree 796:) says 788:Bishops 443:Adomnan 439:Columba 39:archive 3752:RFC.-- 3687:before 3641:" or " 3629:, and 3583:Karnan 3548:Karnan 3346:WP:BRD 3207:Yú Hǎi 3147:Aram I 3127:Yú Hǎi 2839:bishop 2835:priest 2831:deacon 2799:(Talk) 2457:(talk) 2411:wrong. 2014:Oppose 1989:(talk) 1665:common 1661:Saints 1652:, not 1512:Adpete 1270:(Talk) 1226:Cavila 1051:Oppose 928:, not 836:Oppose 770:that? 703:WP:BIO 85:Saints 3441:might 2961:title 2709:from 116:Rabbi 16:< 3758:talk 3725:talk 3700:talk 3664:and 3651:talk 3602:talk 3587:talk 3568:talk 3552:talk 3470:here 3453:talk 3427:talk 3391:talk 3368:talk 3354:talk 3338:here 3334:HERE 3311:talk 3292:talk 3256:talk 3241:talk 3200:. –– 3179:talk 3171:talk 3088:talk 3069:talk 3053:talk 3030:talk 3016:talk 2997:talk 2979:and 2941:talk 2926:talk 2892:talk 2870:talk 2851:talk 2815:talk 2780:talk 2757:talk 2742:talk 2687:talk 2661:talk 2647:talk 2628:talk 2607:talk 2588:talk 2555:talk 2540:talk 2525:talk 2505:talk 2476:talk 2402:talk 2372:talk 2346:talk 2287:talk 2263:pope 2251:Pope 2232:talk 2203:talk 2153:talk 2132:talk 2124:much 2091:talk 2083:much 2077:are 2061:talk 2046:talk 1951:talk 1933:talk 1878:.) 1837:talk 1823:and 1806:Talk 1790:talk 1776:and 1738:Talk 1715:talk 1698:talk 1680:talk 1619:and 1516:talk 1510:not. 1469:talk 1445:Talk 1404:Talk 1356:Talk 1329:Talk 1305:Talk 1285:talk 1230:talk 1215:talk 1197:Talk 1178:talk 1150:talk 1146:Fram 1135:talk 1116:talk 1112:Fram 1077:talk 1059:talk 1055:Fram 1023:Talk 996:talk 975:Talk 955:talk 939:Talk 916:talk 897:Talk 869:talk 846:Talk 826:talk 776:talk 772:Fram 758:Talk 739:talk 712:talk 708:Fram 699:WP:N 688:Talk 669:talk 665:Fram 635:Talk 616:talk 612:Fram 581:talk 561:Talk 530:Talk 515:talk 495:Talk 480:talk 460:Talk 388:talk 369:Talk 328:talk 317:and 304:Talk 267:Talk 235:talk 219:Talk 192:talk 177:Talk 157:talk 130:talk 107:talk 3484:Mar 3414:Mar 3276:not 3196:or 3010:. 2991:. 2957:Mar 2951:Mar 2920:.-- 2884:not 2071:far 1899:or 1870:or 1559:to 1456:can 1390:or 1257:or 1251:are 1107:or 1095:or 1092:or 1087:you 1008:or 818:and 606:or 572:all 524:... 506:all 3760:) 3727:) 3702:) 3653:) 3625:, 3604:) 3589:) 3570:) 3554:) 3524:, 3520:, 3516:, 3512:, 3508:, 3504:, 3500:, 3455:) 3429:) 3393:) 3370:) 3356:) 3313:) 3294:) 3258:) 3243:) 3203:虞海 3181:) 3157:, 3153:, 3123:虞海 3090:) 3071:) 3055:) 3032:) 3018:) 2999:) 2943:) 2928:) 2894:) 2872:) 2853:) 2837:, 2833:, 2817:) 2782:) 2759:) 2744:) 2689:) 2663:) 2649:) 2630:) 2609:) 2590:) 2578:, 2557:) 2542:) 2527:) 2507:) 2478:) 2404:) 2374:) 2348:) 2321:I 2289:) 2234:) 2205:) 2190:is 2155:) 2134:) 2093:) 2063:) 2048:) 1953:) 1935:) 1839:) 1819:, 1809:) 1792:) 1741:) 1717:) 1700:) 1682:) 1639:, 1601:, 1597:, 1593:, 1589:, 1585:, 1518:) 1505:/ 1501:/ 1471:) 1448:) 1438:) 1402:- 1359:) 1327:- 1308:) 1287:) 1265:. 1232:) 1217:) 1200:) 1180:) 1152:) 1137:) 1127:is 1118:) 1104:, 1101:, 1079:) 1061:) 1026:) 998:) 978:) 957:) 942:) 932:. 918:) 900:) 890:). 871:) 849:) 828:) 814:." 778:) 761:) 741:) 714:) 691:) 671:) 638:) 618:) 583:) 564:) 528:- 517:) 498:) 482:) 463:) 449:, 441:, 390:) 372:) 330:) 307:) 270:) 237:) 222:) 194:) 180:) 159:) 132:) 109:) 3790:. 3756:( 3723:( 3698:( 3677:D 3674:B 3671:D 3649:( 3600:( 3585:( 3566:( 3550:( 3451:( 3425:( 3389:( 3366:( 3352:( 3325:n 3309:( 3303:n 3290:( 3254:( 3239:( 3214:✍ 3209:) 3205:( 3177:( 3169:( 3149:, 3134:✍ 3129:) 3125:( 3086:( 3067:( 3051:( 3028:( 3014:( 2995:( 2939:( 2924:( 2890:( 2868:( 2849:( 2813:( 2778:( 2755:( 2740:( 2726:D 2723:B 2720:D 2685:( 2659:( 2645:( 2626:( 2605:( 2586:( 2553:( 2538:( 2523:( 2503:( 2474:( 2400:( 2370:( 2344:( 2285:( 2230:( 2223:. 2201:( 2151:( 2130:( 2089:( 2059:( 2044:( 1949:( 1931:( 1858:/ 1835:( 1803:( 1788:( 1755:. 1735:( 1723:' 1713:( 1696:( 1678:( 1514:( 1467:( 1460:a 1442:( 1353:( 1302:( 1283:( 1228:( 1213:( 1194:( 1176:( 1148:( 1133:( 1114:( 1075:( 1057:( 1020:( 994:( 972:( 953:( 936:( 914:( 894:( 867:( 843:( 824:( 806:" 774:( 755:( 737:( 710:( 685:( 667:( 632:( 614:( 579:( 558:( 513:( 492:( 478:( 457:( 445:, 386:( 366:( 326:( 301:( 297:. 264:( 233:( 216:( 190:( 174:( 155:( 128:( 105:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index