Talk:Patron saint

message: There was a reference I think might be anti-catholic vandalism, which I removed. I also removed a reference to a serial killer being a patron saint of prostitutes, which I think would offend people in general. This page is, for all intensive purposes, going to be viewed by religious people. Therefore it should be tailored to their tastes, although should remain objective as well. These references were neither.24.125.102.206 (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: In the patron saint of countries section, St Andrew and Andrew the Apostle need to be merged as they appear to be the same person according to the St Andrew article and my own limited knowledge. DavidScotson 15:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Andrew (the Apostle) 

message: A recent edit removed the references to Mary and substituted: "islam is the only right religion" is only a Patron of a place in the sense that she is the Patron of All Things blessed and good. Her virginity is famed."  That new comment obviously can't stand as is (very POV), but the more important issue is the deletion of the many specific designations.  If they're not appropriate for this article, should they be added to the Blessed Virgin Mary article?  I've raised the question on Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary as well. JamesMLane 14:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary is considered the patron saint of many countries (usually under a specific title: Immaculate Conception for Korea, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe for Mexico and all America, Nossa Senhora di Buon Aparecida for Brazil, and so forth). I think the page should be restored, maybe with dividing them up into the correct titles. Or to placate the editor who made the change, make a new section "Countries under Mary's patronage", listing them by the proper title. Note that several items that were left in the list by the editor are actually appearances of Mary. -- Mpolo
I believe strongly that the deleted information should be available somewhere -- back where it was, or in a separate section in this article as you suggest, or ported over to the Blessed Virgin Mary article.  I don't know nearly enough to adjudicate among these possibilities, though.  Someone should be bold and put it somewhere.  Meanwhile, I'm taking out the puffery about her virginity. JamesMLane 13:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, I decided to "be bold"... Essentially, I just restored what was removed in a different format and in separate sections. Under "Countries and places", I removed from the "generic" list of Marian patronage any place that was listed under a more specific title. I removed most of the links to the titles, as they are unlikely to ever be written, though I left links to some of the better known or more popular titles of the Blessed Virgin. Does it look O.K.? Mpolo 11 Aug 2004
It looks OK to me, but I really am out of my depth here.  You've definitely rescued some information (specific titles and associations) that would've otherwise been lost, so you've improved the article, which is the key test.  If it's not perfect, maybe some real expert in Mariology will come along and fix it sometime. JamesMLane 07:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary as patron saint 

message: :Catholic Online http://www.catholic.org/ only lists him as the parton saint of Ireland. 
:I went to school at the University of Missouri at Rolla in the '70s, and the claim that Patrick was the patron saint was justified as follows:
::Saint Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland.
::A snake is just a big worm.
::Therefore, Patrick invented the worm drive.
::Worm drives are used by engineers.
::Thus, Patrick is their patron saint.
wow, christian reasoning is... interesting --93.192.63.65 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Patrick - patron saint of engineers? 

message: The assertion that St Christopher was removed from the calendar of Saints by the Catholic Church because there isn't enough room to fit all into a 365 day year is arrant nonsense. Many saints share the same days. I have edited accordingly. Ulysses54 07:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Saints 

message: It seems to me that the term "saint" in this article's title should be capitalized. I believe I am correct in thinking that "saint" refers to any believer, while "Saint" refers to those who have been granted Sainthood by the church. Is there a consensus for a move? If no consensus seems to develop, I'll be bold, and move it myself. --YbborTalk 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been three days. I'm moving it. --YbborTalk 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further research, I'm changing my mind. My Mirriam-Webster dictionary leaves the term uncapitalized. --YbborTalk 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalize Saint in Title? 

message: I would like to suggest that the section called "criticism" be renamed and that the not neutral language such as "serious blasphemy" be changed. Surely blasphemy without qualification is enough. I tried to do this, but was told to stop and do not feel very confident to try again. Could someone else find a way to do it that would not be vandalism. Thank you. (64.231.11.47 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is, criticism does exist regardless of who is right. Basically, that's what the section is saying. There is some good in the rewording from the above editor, but I do not think the title change is warranted. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  making more neutral (help please) 

message: The main reason I had for visiting this page was that I was curious about how a particular saint or saints becomes the patron of something, and there isn't much, if anything, of an answer to that here. I can see how historically patronage may have been bestowed (iconography, legend, birthplace and so on) in some cases; how does it happen nowadays, if it does still happen? Do the various branches of Christianity always agree on assignments? Is, indeed, the concept of patronage official doctrine?
I'm sorry if I seem to be asking for information rather than contributing it, but I think that asking questions of the knowledgeable is a good way to get information, and hope that any answers to my questions may be useful material for the page. Kay Dekker (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Becoming a patron saint? 

message: This article tells me absolutely nothing about what a patron saint actually IS.
At least have a dictionary definition or something, the average user isn't going to plug around a handful of specialized pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.194.97 (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. The article was vandalised a while back and needed a bit of restoration work to put the definition back. Man vyi (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No information! 

message: The article says that a patron saint is the advocate of a nation, state, class, clan, activity or person, but should not also include animals in this list? Francis of Assissi is the patron saint of animals. Vorbee (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Can be patron saint of animals

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Per a message from DanCherek:
(quoting)
:Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution 
: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from :Bodhisattva into :Patron saint. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted  template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.  DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  attribution