Talk:Catholic Church in Romania

message: Why was this now so important to redirect Roman Catholicism in Romania to Romanian Roman-Catholic Church? Is the adjective "Romanian" is the most important? All other countries say Roman Catholicism here and here, now the Romanians has to emphasize their nationalism even here, when it is about a thoroughly universal organization?! Furthermore, the article itself says that inside Catholic Church in Romania the Romanians themselves are not the largest group in terms of ethnicity. And this Romanian Roman-Catholic Church sounds quite funny anyway.
:There's a bit of spirited discussion over how to characterize things inside wikiproject:catholicism. I expect that such moves are going to happen all over the catholic content as the project members come to a consensus over how things should be labeled. It's currently pretty inconsistent. TMLutas 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The images of the churches at the end in this article are alphabetic classified, sure after the name of the village, not of the commune. For example, the church of Şandra is at Ş, not at B (from Beltiug commune). Consequently, the place of the church from Babda is at B, not at C (from Cenei commune). --Mihai Andrei (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chance that we should have articles on villages is minuscule and contradicts WP:NOT (even if they take the liberty on Romanian wiki). You were right about the village-to-commune for Beltiug, but that was the only slip-up here (I simply forgot to check what commune the village was in). Dahn (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with erasing the identity of the villages. It is evident that the famous orthodox church in Sibiel is in Sibiel, even when Sibiel belongs to the Sălişte commune etc. Please see the excellent :ro:Format:Biserici de lemn din Salaj and admite the primate of the village name. Any other solution where absurd, because in one commune are many villages whit each own church. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability of individual villages remains dubious to say the least, and the "several churches per commune" argument is irrelevant here (since nu such instance occurs or will likely occur in this here article). Any info about any village can fit nicely into the articles on their communes. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no right to expropriate the church of Şandra from the citizens of Şandra for giving it to the citizens of Beltiug. What you are dong is to desinformate the article lecturer. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, here we go again... Dahn (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you move the Probota Monastery at Dolhasca Monastery, because Dolhasca is the commune, and Probota the village!? See: :Painted churches of northern Moldavia. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I move them? Are these articles on churches? Take a moment to ponder why your analogy is irrelevant. Dahn (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you only described the :Image:Biserica Bobda - Timis.jpg as "Church of Cenei", and the church of Şandra as "Church of Beltiug", in disrespect for truth and for local people. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the people not live in that commune, Mihai Andrei? Is their administration disrespecting them every day? Are you not basing your examples on individual monuments (i.e.: not on the villages)? Is there any logaical possibility that all villages become articles? And, finally, what is it to me or this project how a user decided to name his photo? Dahn (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mihai, you are right that there could be more than one Roman Catholic church in a commune, that's why I propose this version, which includes the name of the village, but it also links to the commune. Dahn is also right that probably 90% of the villages don't need separate articles, but rather sections in the commune articles, because there's not much to say about them and for most of them, we would not be able to fill more than half a page. bogdan (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'accord. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetical turn

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catholic Church in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010050951/http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi2000/current5/mi56.htm to http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi2000/current5/mi56.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Latin Church of the Catholic Church is known by most people in Romania as the "Roman-Catholic Church". This distinction is used in order to distinguish between the Latin Church and the Greek Catholic Church. For other countries which don't have an Eastern Catholic Sui iuris church it is common to only say "Catholic Church", and others that do have eastern catholics might be familiar with the term "Latin Catholic", but this is not the case in Romania. In Romania nobody knows what "The Latin Church" is. The name that is used by the public is "Roman Catholic Church" which is also the official name under which the Government of Romania recognizes this denomination legally. This page primarily talks about the Latin Church because the Greek one has it's own page. If we want to make this page talk about all catholics in Romania then we have a problem with the infobox in the sections: Type, Orientation, Metropolitan
Archbishop (Aurel Percă has jurisdiction only over the Latin Church), Bishops (there are more then 6 if we consider the Greek Church also), the Ecclesiastical provinces, the list of dioceses, Liturgy, Headquarters and even the number of members, clerics and churches which are all only for the Latin Church, excluding the greek catholics. If we mix the Greek-Catholics in those sections as well (they already have their own infobox with all of those) we are left not knowing necessary distinctives about the Latin Church in Romania. - Barumbarumba (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The CER represents non-Latin Catholics of Romania as well as all Latin Catholics in the country. The nation's domestic hierarchy is administer all within the same episcopal conference, despite the presence of at least three formally organized sui iuris churches. While you're unfamiliar with nomenclature used extensively throughout Wikipedia and in the English language, this does not negate the fact that 1.) this article is intended to provide coverage of all Romanian Catholics (Latin/"Roman", Armenian, Romanian Byzantine, etc.) and 2.) they share certain hierarchies not precisely congruent with legal realities. The article and the sources cited all make this clear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not adressed the problem of the infobox. Change what you want with the page, but leave the infobox as it was before because the Romanian Greek Catholic Church has an accurate infobox on it's page, but the Latin Church doesn't. At least do a separation as does the Catholic Church in Ukraine infobox regarding members and leaders and so on, if you are not willing to make a different page for the Latin Church in this country. Barumbarumba (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is correct as it is at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. I was the one who made it and i did it only for the Latin Church. The 741,276 members are only the ones that are of the latin rite not counting the greek. And if you want to add the greeks to that number as well you have a problem: the church itself claims some 500.000 but only 150,000 romanians actually declare themselves greek-catholic. Barumbarumba (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you inserted the infobox with an inaccurate representation of what is the article's subject: both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic bodies (the latter including those from multiple ECCs). With this fundamental misunderstanding in mind, I'll remove the the infobox. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and infobox 

message: Recently, a set of unwise changes has been imposed on this article. Broadly, they involve: a) removing the infobox, which is bizarre given its crucial role in giving ready information; b) removing the photo gallery, again strange: readers will naturally be interested in knowing what the churches described look like; c) diluting the lead section. As far as I can tell, this series of modifications has to do with a sudden wish to expand the scope of the article from Latin Rite Catholics to all Catholics, i.e. to add Greek-Catholics into the mix. This is ill-advised for at least four reasons: first, the two rites have different histories, cultures and structures; second, there’s a separate article on the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church; third, sources (government and otherwise) generally treat the two separately — there isn’t much material that covers both branches under the same heading; fourth, it really isn’t an issue if we limit the scope to Latin Rite Catholicism, provided we note (as we always have!) that an important Greek-Catholic Church also exists.
Therefore, I propose reverting to the stable version of 7 January, keeping the above principles in mind. Going forward, minor changes can be made, but the basic structure and scope of the article will be as before.
Pinging interested editors: 
*Support as proposer. — Biruitorul Talk 10:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering this discussion closed with no consensus. The votestacked editors have repeated demonstrably inaccurate statements without providing explicit source-based rationale; the one source cited in the most recent comment even goes further to discount their assertions, directly commenting on multiple Catholic bodies as part of a larger grouping. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey