Talk:List of fictional clergy and religious figures/Archive 1

message: Merging "friar" and "monk", as they are the same thing.  Some monastic orders use "friar" vice "brother" as a term of address.  Also removed Alvis, as he would be considered a deity, not clergy.  --Mitsukai 19:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is good. Csernica 02:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: For the most part, yes.  But often in the Protestant "fringe" of faith healers and tent revivals, you run across preacher-type figures that aren't really clergy in the proper sense of the word. I think "ministers" should be reserved for the clergy and some other label should be used for the others. Csernica 03:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: it wasn't reverted.  You put it in the wrong location, so I moved it to the correct one.  It's still on the page, just in the order we agreed to use (listed alphabetically by last (or superhero name if that's better known), then first if last not available, then description if neither is available.--Mitsukai 08:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Trying to come up with some rational ordering isn't easy here.  Sometimes last names or first names aren't available.  Christian monastics frequently don't use their family names, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. Japanese place the family name first, but this isn't always how a character's name is known to English speakers.  I don't even want to get into the various permutations Chinese names can assume. I suggest we list by:
#Family name when it's available or customarily used regardless of given order
#Christian or personal name when no last name is available or customarily used
#Place associated with the title when only a title is available
#Pseudonym when this is how the character is generally known, for example, Nightcrawler or perhaps "Jii-chan" from InuYasha.
The religions themselves should probably be listed in alphabetical order but with "Other" placed last. Offices within each religion I think are best placed in either ascending or descending order of authority -- it really doesn't matter which, but we should pick one and stick with it. Csernica 03:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ascending order for rank sounds fine to me.  I've been putting the Japanese names in Western Order, because that seems to be the Wiki standard (if necessary, then put kanji and traditional Japanese order afterwards).--Mitsukai 03:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Order 

message: Do we (or are we already) placing "semi-fictional" (ie, fictionalized version of historical persons) clergy and religious on this list?  I've noted a couple names I thought might fall into the category and wanted to make sure.  --Mitsukai 16:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider a fictionalized version of a real person to be a fictional character. I can't think of a clergyperson of the top of my head, but an example would be Matthew Harrison Brady from Inherit the Wind, a fictional version of William Jennings Bryan. At any rate, I'd say to consider them fictional for purposes of this article.Rockhopper10r 17:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair.  There are numerous characters in (for example) the anime Samurai Deeper Kyo that are based on historical people; the miko Okuni was one.  Just doublechecking so we have a universal standard here. --Mitsukai 18:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Question Time 

message: I have added this category to accomodate an new entry I wanted to make, but it could also be used for Christian clergy prior to the rise of the modern divisions in the church.  "Prester John" wasn't clearly identified with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Nestorianism or any actual historical group, so he fits here.  So might fictionalized versions of, say, the apostles or some early bishop like Polycarp who might equally be "claimed" by any number of modern groups. Csernica 23:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unspecified/Pre-schism 

message: Isn't this book considered to be non-fiction?  If so, then none of the people it mentions can really be listed here, since they're not fictional. Csernica 18:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is considered non-fiction, but the location of the Pirate Democracy is considered to be legendary at best; completely fictional at worst.  There is also some evidence that the priest in question was an invention of the author.  Overall, it's a disputable entry, and if worst comes to, I don't see a problem with it being removed from the list. --Mitsukai 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A General History of the Robberies and Murders Of the most notorious Pyrates 

message: Okay, I don't know how much this is going to pop up, but how do we want to handle multiple references?  By this, I mean cases where a fictionalized historical figure might pop up in more than one work by different author, or unrelated works by the same author. To beat the Okuni example again, I suggest the following:
*Izumo no Okuni
**as "Okuni Izumo" in Samurai Deeper Kyo
**as "Okuni" in Samurai Warriors
Again, I don't know how often this would occur other than the above example, but considering that one has already appeared (Father Callahan) it might be good to address this now.--Mitsukai 12:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple References 

message: Fascinating though the detailed description of Yevonism is, it seems to be adding a large amount of descriptive material to a page that's otherwise a list of names, and relatively few actual names. Can we move the descriptive stuff elsewhere, and trim down the material on this page to names alone? I'm loath to act unilaterally here because other, more experienced editors evidently know quite a bit about the setting. AlexTiefling 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  The entry should mainly give names and perhaps a brief description of each rank (since most don't know about it).  Aside from that, anymore more detailed should be on the Yevonism page.--Mitsukai 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy?