Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church

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

Contested deletion[edit]

The topic of this article is clearly different and separate from the basilica, which is a type of building and an architectural form. The basilica in Roman Catholicism is a separate topic which has no relation to the Roman buildings or the architectural format, and is about a topic of canon law. They are not the same thing and the subjects are not to be covered in the same article. This article has been nominated for deletion by an editor that has a clear and express preference for the Roman Catholic emphasis of the word as a title for particular churches with special powers of some kind, and hoped to make that the primary topic of the page basilica. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

I have reverted (for the second time) the addition of copyvio. The license (CC BY-SA 3.0 ) clearly states Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.). That did not happen. That the texten are copied can be seen here: Minor Basilica and here Major Basilica. Author thinks that he his more convincing by making threats... (I have to disappoint him) The Banner talk 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, instead of reverting, couldn't you have just provided attribution and repaired the violation? Elizium23 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not after the threats. Threats: Please stop or war will break out. and I thought that we had an agreement to withdraw all nominations pending a full examination. That being the case, blanking is not in the spirit of the agreement. Do this again and the agreement is off The Banner talk 18:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, edit-war instead? Over in-wiki copying? Seriously? Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The editwar depends on the other author, when he wants to reinstate the copyvio. And breaches of CC BY-SA 3.0 are serious, especially on the scale done (see the links to duplication detector given). The Banner talk 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In-lie citations[edit]

Which edits of mine resulted in the In-line citation flag being placed on the page? Almost all of my edits were cited. What improvements needs to be done to remove the tag? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of Mary[edit]

In an article about Catholic terminology (Catholic basilicas), is it appropriate to use Catholic terminology? Consider the case of Mary (mother of Jesus) in particular have ing regard also to titles of Mary. May the article use Catholic terms like:

  1. Virgin Mary
  2. virgin Mary
  3. Blessed Virgin Mary
  4. Theotokos
  5. Mother of God
  6. etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism has been alerted to this discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no need to seek further opinions on this the WP:MOS is clear on WP:HON. Religious titles and other crude puffery has no place in an encyclopaedia that purports to adhere to a neutral point of view. Just because a minority worships this character does not mean Wikipedia needs to bow down and grovel with the Catholics. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, human parthenogenesis is a myth, and quite right to. GPinkerton (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the problem and your preferred solution which may be succinctly paraphrased as "GPinkerton locuta est, causa finita est". By the way, Wiki has no opinion on parthenogenesis: Wiki is happy to report what reliable sources say on a subject. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Grovel with the Catholics"? No need to give offense on a terminology issue (on which I agree with you). - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, no reliable source will repeat such superstition. GPinkerton (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's very well-established we don't include the "Blessed" in any circumstances, except as part of a proper name. "Virgin Mary" is of course fine, and "Theotokos" the Orthodox term, only in Catholic use in some theological contexts, or by Eastern Rite Catholics etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is "Virgin Mary" fine but "Blessed Virgin Mary" not fine? Does it not contain a claim of virginity that may be problematic with her attested status as a mother? Are we in "alleged virgin Mary" or "Mary (alleged virgin)" territory? That might suit GPinkerton. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel Lodged, WP:HON and WP:NPOV recommends against such POV verbiage. We can say Apollo Grannus without actually believing the Apollo and Grannus were the same deity. We don't say "the lord" whenever Ba'al is mentioned, and neither do we write "D.O.M." after every mention of Jupiter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet WP:HON also states "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included." Within Catholicism, it would certainly be the case that there is more (documented) usage of BVM than VM. And this is an article about Catholic terminology after all and so should reflect that common usage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can hardly claim "that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it"! We resolved this issue years ago, & I'd drop this. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely hear of "Blessèd" anything. It's quite wrong to say "Virgin Mary" always appears with that adjective; indeed it is rarely seen with the verbal excrescence. GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (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) 02:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagrada Familia - minor basilica[edit]

I have evidence of the Sagrada Familia being decreed a minor basilica but Wikipedia doesn't mention it. I don't know how to properly edit it into the article but I'm going to drop this link here and hope someone else can pick it up https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/21354/pope-benedict-xvi-dedicates-barcelonas-sagrada-familia 12.3.99.82 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly stated in Sagrada Família. The Banner talk 15:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basilicas_in_the_Catholic_Church&oldid=1205793479"