Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox Christian leader

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paulmnguyen (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 13 February 2020 (→Deacon or Priest Ordination: reply no further action needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purple colour - offensive

The purple colour of the heading is too bright and distracting. Why can it not just be white? It's ugly and distracting. How does one change it? Thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the colour is set by the abovestyle at the top of Template:Infobox Christian leader, with priest= , pope= , cardinal= , and default= . changing it would require discussion here. I could see having the default the same as priest, which is  . Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what's offensive about it. Purple is a pretty universally recognized color of a bishop (or monsignor, for historical reasons). I could see one saying that it should be a softer hue, though that's debatable, but the color itself seems rather appropriate. I'd like to hear your rationale. Ergo Sum 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to purple per se, but it seems better to make them all one color. It is already plenty clear already if the leader is a this or that type, and the color would not make it any more clear. tahc chat 02:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, I don't see much of a reason for not folding this template into {{Infobox clergy}} or {{Infobox religious biography}}. It seems that one of the major reasons for this separate template is to allow the color-based differentiation of the different orders unique to Christianity. Ergo Sum 05:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for Catholic Church stuff, what about consequently applying the same colour "gold" as seen in Template:Infobox Pope styles, etc.? PPEMES (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my support for the current Black-Priest, Purple-Bishop, Red-Cardinal, Yellow-Pope scheme. The rationale behind the existence of this infobox is to convey in unique fashion the clerical status of the individual, not their denominational affiliation. If it were not for this overriding characteristic, there would really be no need for this infobox at all, since there are others that could replicate its function. Ergo Sum 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too support for the current Black-Priest, Purple-Bishop, Red-Cardinal, Yellow-Pope scheme, because it derives from the colors used in most denominations.A ntv (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation for venerated parameter inconsistent with most common usage

The venerated param is described in the docs as "Date this leader is venerated.". But of 138 pages that use this parameter, only 2 use it this way (Concobhar Ó Duibheannaigh and Terence O'Brien (bishop)). The others most commonly use "Roman Catholic Church" as the value, or similar ("Catholic Mariavite Church", "Church of England"). Presumably the fix would be to update the docs to reflect how it's actually used (and update the two outlier articles)? But maybe someone feels strongly that it should keep its documented meaning, and the 136 articles should be changed? You can find the usages by searching insource:"Infobox Christian leader" insource:/venerated *= *[A-Za-z0-9]/ Colin M (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the parameter now shows as "Venerated in" (ie which churches), rather than "Date Venerated", the description should be updated. The date goes in |Feast day=. I agree with Colin M that it should be changed to reflect current use. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with both of the above. Ergo Sum 15:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed the template documentation. Didn't update the two articles still using dates for that field (Concobhar Ó Duibheannaigh and Terence O'Brien (bishop)) as I'm not sure what the proper value should be in those cases. Colin M (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add fields for dismissal/dispensation from clerical state

For Catholic clergy who have been dismissed or dispensed from the clerical state, it might be good to add corresponding fields under the "Orders" header. See the article of Theodore Edgar McCarrick for example. The current revision reads:

Orders

This involves an awkward use of <br> and <small> tags in the source.

I suggest it should look something like this:

Orders

Following the naming convention of the other variables (e.g. {{consecration}} / {{consecrated_by}}), the requested variables to add would be:

  • {{dismissal}}
  • {{dismissed_by}}
  • {{dispensation}}
  • {{dispensed_by}}

For those who aren't aware, the difference between a dismissal and a dispensation is that a dismissal is forced, as in McCarrick's case, whereas a dispensation is requested, as in Jonathan Morris's case. (More info.) The term "defrocked" means a prohibition on wearing clerical attire, which is different. The term "laicized," while also common, is not the preferred terminology, as many Catholics consider it offensive to the laity.

The use of the {{dismissal}} and {{dismissed_by}} variables would produce an example as given above. The use of the {{dispensation}} and {{dispensed_by}} variables would produce an example like:

Orders

As shown in the examples, linking the field headers to Loss of clerical state (Catholic Church) would be helpful. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the need for such a parameter, but it should be wider reaching. A simple |laicization=/|laicisation= with a link to the Defrocking article, would allow the parameter to be used by those from churches other than the RRC who use this practice. I don't see a need for |laicized_by=, as it would crowd the infobox and doesn't have the same meaning as the ordained_by parameters (ie linking with apostolic succession). The neutral wording of laicization/laicisation would allow the one parameter to be used for all occurrences from criminal to choice: it isn't an offensive term, especially given that there's nothing offensive about being being a layperson (RS sources: Catholic News Agency, The Tablet, BBC]). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about other churches, but for the Catholic Church, the technical terms are the ones I gave (see canon law). The word "laicization" is commonly used, especially in the media, but it's not the "official" Catholic terminology (nor is "defrocking," which technically only refers to the attire, not the state). Elaborating on what I said before: some Catholics consider the word "laicization" offensive in the context of forced dismissals from the clerical state because it insinuates that the lay status is a punishment. There's obviously nothing wrong with being a layperson, but that's exactly why they find it offensive to associate the lay state with a punishment for clergy. I don't find it offensive, but I can understand why some do. Perhaps we could have a |laicization= parameter (for the date), together with an optional |laicization_type= parameter with two possible values: "dismissal" or "dispensation". If the type parameter is provided, it would render "Dismissed/Dispensed from clerical state" respectively, whereas if the type parameter is omitted, the default rendering would be "Laicized". I think this would cover all our use cases. I would still be in favor of a |laicized_by= field, since, in the Catholic Church, laicization is always an act done by a pope. It's never an anonymous process. It's analogous to the existing parameter |created_cardinal_by=. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox should give just a a quick info (in this case that the person is no more a cleric): the details shall go into the text. I prefer something more general (such as ceased to be a cleric: (date)) because easier to use (and to be understood) also for other confessions different from Catholic. While the ordained_by parameters have a real meaning for the three orders and also for the cardinalate it has some meaning (important only for the cardinal of the past centuries), the laicized_by (or similar) parameter takes so little information (to know the pope it is enough the date) that it should be avoided. A ntv (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find terminology that works for everybody. The problem with "Ceased to be a cleric" is that, in Catholic theology, a "laicized" priest can never be "un-ordained" or cease to be a priest; he only loses the status associated with it. What about "Removed from ministry"? (|removed_from_ministry=) I think this is general enough while also being accurate for Catholics and for others. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Catholic theology the term cleric denotes a jurisdictional status, not the having received the Holy orders (i.e. not a sacramental status). After the Vatican Council II the clerical status has lost most of its meaning. Before VCII the clerical status started with the Tonsure and was reversible in rare cases (having just a jurisdictional meaning) for clerics who did not had received the Holy Orders (for example: former Cardinal Francesco Maria de' Medici and many others). The usual meaning of the word clergy still retains the jurisdictional meaning simply not part of the laity and therefore ceased to be cleric is appropriate for formed Cardinal McCarrick who lost the jurisdictional status of being a cleric without loosing his Holy Orders. Laicized has the same exact meaning, but perhaps not so easy to understand. I can agree also with Removed from ministry, just it should be applied to whichever suspension from the active ministry (and it is a different issue, reversible, and perhaps not worthy enough to be noted in the infobox). A ntv (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Removed from ministry" sounds like someone has been forced out/punished. "ceased to be a cleric" is too long and would cover multiple (3?) lines in the infobox. Remember this is "Infobox Christian leader" not "Catholic leader". In order to have a limited number of relevant parameters in the infobox, we should really be settling on just one. For those who don't understand what laicization is, we can have it linked. Looking at the defrocking article (and "defrocking" is a negative term): Orthodox churches do practice "de-ordaining" someone; various protestant churches practice defrocking; and in North American Anglican churches they prefer the official wording "deposition". Also, the word choice shouldn't be denomination specific, because that would give too many options, and laicization/laicisation is in common use and understanding (I gave some links above). |laicization= would be filled with a date, or just simpley "yes" when a date is missing, and any further details would be included in the main body of the text. As A ntv states, the infobox is only supposed to be a summary. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's have a |laicized= parameter, which renders as a "Laicized" field and takes either "Yes" or a date. Jdcompguy (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree to the above proposal of |laicized=. A ntv (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jdcompguy and A ntv. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please added: | label22 = [[Defrocking|Laicized]] | data22 = {{{laicized|}}}

 Done Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New relatives parameter

I propose creating a new parameter called |relatives=. This would be a catchall for relatives that are not currently covered by the existing |parents=, |spouse=, and |children= parameters. Namely, it is necessary for representing siblings, but also cousins, uncles, grandparents, etc. This would also be consistent with {{Infobox person}}, which has a catchall relatives parameter. This proposed parameter would occur immediately after |children=. I've added the proposal to the sandbox, here. Ergo Sum 03:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Infobox are only for a few main information, and this infobox has already a lot of information, by far more than {{Infobox person}}. In case the relatives are an important information, it shall be indicated in the text. A ntv (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A ntv: What’s your take on combining all the relationship parameters into one relative parameter. If parameter overload is your concern, I see no reason why we need separate ones for each type of relationship. Relationships can be indicated parenthetically in one parameter field. Also, I think you would agree that sibling relationships are just as historically important as e.g. parent relationships. Ergo Sum 11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you give an example of an article using this infobox for which this parameter would be useful? Jdcompguy (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcompguy: What initially prompted my proposal was Thomas Mulledy, which will soon be accompanied by the article of his brother Samuel Mulledy. However, another example is Patrick Francis Healy, which should (and will soon) be using Infobox Christian leader. Ergo Sum 11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcompguy: As another example, Anglican Bishops Kate Prowd and Lindsay Urwin are brother and sister but there's no place to put that in the infobox. Bookscale (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add baptism field variation

Can someone please add the baptised field as an alternative for birth_date? The baptism date is often all that is available for pre-19th century people. This field is used on {{infobox person}} and does not appear if birth_date is filled, and it is clearly relevant for this type of infobox. Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: It sounds like a good idea. Can you give a few examples of articles in which the baptism date is known but the birth date is not? Ergo Sum 16:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: Sure, Folliott Cornewall is why I came here. It's very common to see the text "ABC person was born in XYZ place, and was baptised there on [date]..." in a large number of articles (see John Overall (bishop), Anthony Scattergood, Joannes Chrysostomus Teniers, Thomas Newlin and Thomas Hutchinson (scholar)). I regularly do maintenance on finding missing birth/death dates and am currently going through various Anglican leaders, starting with some smaller roles. Most don't have infoboxes, but this one did, and I was surprised this field was not available. I do my best to find the actual date of birth but a lot of times it's hopeless and was never recorded. Thank you for the quick response. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: Sounds good. I've implemented the request in the template sandbox. Can you verify that this is the change you are requesting? Ergo Sum 19:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: It looks right to me. Thanks! —МандичкаYO 😜 22:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, as I don't expect there to be any opposition to the proposal. Ergo Sum 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon or Priest Ordination

Any interest in dividing the ordination field into deacon_ordination and priest_ordination? Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmnguyen: I think that's what we have {{Ordination}}. I've done a lot of work on Ordination, but perhaps it's time to fold it into {{Infobox Christian leader}}. That would be a major project. Ergo Sum 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking, @Ergo Sum:. Maybe I'll just incorporate that? The article in question is a confrere of mine, Fr. Timothy Gallagher. That could suffice. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_Christian_leader&oldid=940666658"