Talk:Order of St. Gregory the Great

message: I removed the text that stated the Order of St. Gregory is the highest honor in the Catholic Church that a lay man or woman can obtain. First, the Order of St. Pius V, which is still awarded, is senior (higher) than St. Gregory. Secondly, The Order of Christ and the Order of the Golden Spur are senior to both of these orders, and while neither has been awarded in decades, have not been abrogated.  Thus the Order of St. Gregory is the fourth highest of the five orders of knighthood of the Holy See. Additionally, there are other honors given to lay people by the Pope, which could conceivably be considered higher--the honor of Gentleman of His Holiness is not officially designated as being senior or junior to St. Gregory, but is certainly highly regarded and rarely awarded. 
Sources: http://www.papalhonorees.org/intro.htm, http://www.chivalricorders.org, Burke's World Order of Knighthood and Merit (Sainty and Heydoo-Mankal, eds.), Orders of Knighthood and the Holy See (Bander van Duren)
167.80.244.204 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not the highest

message: I don't see how we can hold down this list of notables. If there is an article, do they go here, even though most of us have never heard of him/her? Student7 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold list of notables down?

message: The degree of a "Knight Grand Cross of the Second Class" was abolished on the 7th. of February 1905.
I thought that Wikipedia was "up to date"....
Robert Prummel (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought that Wikipedia was "up to date".... 

message: Odd that the article never contained the name of Conrad Black until he was convicted. Up until then he was not notable enough for inclusion. What changed? Do Boy Scouts of American, PTA, his local credit union, lodge, all take equal hits? My thought is to take the good with the bad. If he wasn't interesting enough to be in here before, he shouldn't be here now. Same with scouts, PTA, etc. If he was in their articles, however, then they have to take the bad with the good. But they don't all get added retroactively. Student7 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notables

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Gilbert Levine about the fact that he's become known as "Sir Gilbert Levine".  Some of us are trying to make the point that papal knighthoods do not carry any such pro-nominal title; while others are arguing that Benedict XVI has spoken and his word is law.  If anyone can help settle the issue, please come over and join us.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilbert Levine and the use of "Sir

message: Student7, I notice that you have deleted quite a few attempts to add new names to the list based on the fact that you haven't heard of the person.  What criteria are you using to determine who to keep?  Why did you decide that, for example, an American conductor or philanthropist is more notable than a Canadian senator?  Is it strictly nationality?  Is it literally that you personally haven't heard of him?  Maybe there should be some set guidelines that more than one person can be in on.  I'd be happy to work on that with you. Cheers Dawn Bard (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned, the Vatican has distributed these to thousands of people over the years. By distributing them to well-known people, they hoped to enhance the reputation of the order. So when they distributed them to the ordinary folks, they would "mean" something. We could fork people who were ordinary but somehow have an article. In other words keep a few in the main article. This still would mean using some judgement that a movie star is better known than the guy next door. This is pretty much the way most cities have gone. They all tried to hold the line at well=known people then finally gave up and forked a list of "everybody." I suppose we could do the same. The only time anybody ever looks at the page is when trying to insert their grandfather, so the potential editors just don't stay around. I came to insert my wife's grandfather and realized he didn't really belong here. And stayed to try to maintain some balance. Otherwise the article would be an unreadable thousand names with a little explanatin at the top. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Waxman is so prominent, why does editor have to tell us that he is. Article is brand new. It has taken someone this long from Wikipedia's inception to create an article on him. If he were really prominent, people would have fought over the opportunity. I think he should be deleted. Student7 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notables, again

message: It would be nice if the article says what "Pro Deo et Principe" means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.68.102 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I get "for God and rule." The first part translates okay. The second, "for rule" sounds funny. Needs more liberal translation for modern ears, I fear. Literalists may not like a liberal translation. Student7 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto? 

message: Article prsently says:  "Knights Grand Cross of the Order are entitled to be addressed with the style His/Her Excellency in front of their name." and cites:  "Satow, Ernest Mason, Sir - A Guide to Diplomatic Practice".  I don't think I buy this, for various reasons:  in what purports to be the full text online, , there's no mention of the order at all, much less of this privilege;  I find no mention of it anywher else;  no claim is made for any such privilege for any of the "higher" papal orders;  it's not consistent with the practice with knightly orders of other countries;  it doesn't seem to make sense with regard to other Vatican practice, as it uses "Excellency" for nuncios and bishops.
I propose to remove this entirely, unless someone argues what a horrible mistake that would be.  84.203.74.123 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do! Thanks for researching it! If it turns out otherwise, the editor will have to furnish a reliable citation. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not so excellent. 

message: The wiki article on alleged paedophile Jimmy Savile, states that moves are afoot to strip him of the award posthumously.  Does anyone know how this is carried out?  And was there any significance (templar?) in his burial position (at a 45 degree angle)?  80.42.235.106 (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He will not be stripped until a police investigation is concluded in a year or two. It has hardly started yet. Accusations, so far. It will take the Vatican a year or two after that, to take any action if the police investigation is negative. All of the people with awards have done something wrong about which they would be embarrassed, so the Vatican may do nothing in the long run. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are people stripped of the award?  Re: Jimmy Savile. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was not moved (as to each). This is a single close of multiple related contemporaneous moves requests by one nominator  – in no particular order, of:
* Talk:Cross of St. George#Requested move 13 December 2015;
* Talk:Order of St. Gregory the Great#Requested move 13 December 2015;
* Talk:St Joseph's Day#Requested move 12 December 2015;
* Talk:St Mark's Eve#Requested move 12 December 2015;
* Talk:St. Martin's Day#Requested move 12 December 2015;
* Talk:St. Andrew's Day#Requested move 12 December 2015;
* Talk:Order of St. George#Requested move 13 December 2015; and
* Talk:Fort St. Angelo#Requested move 12 December 2015.
:The nomination text is near identical as to each ("To recover/relief/remove from/the abbrevation") and opaque to the extent that we can only infer that abbreviations in article titles are considered poor or improper for unspecified reasons and without a policy- or guideline-based rationale. Each has been opposed on the basis that there is no overarching prohibition or preference in our naming conventions against the use of abbreviations and that the common names policy does not support the move—that the use of  St/St. as to each title is more common in a preponderance of reliable English language sources, than is Saint spelled out. Since that was only supported by assertion and by reference to a web search (as opposed to a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, such as of books), I have done a spot check and it is borne out by quite a significant margin, e.g., this versus this. The chief ground for supports was to avoid contests/edit wars over whether or not to affix a period to the abbreviation, i.e, St versus St. We generally do not choose titles based on the possibility of edit wars but rather based on what title is proper, on the merits, under our naming conventions. If any user wishes to take on a requested move on that issue, that can be done separately – though they should probably read all subsections of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English first. Finally, I note that though one contributor was found to be a sockpuppet and his or her !vote was struck where it appeared, the sockpuppet charge as to the nominator was returned unsubstantiated, and does not figure in this close.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Order of St. Gregory the Great →  – To relief abbrevation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
--Relisting. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusioned request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Order of St. Gregory the Great. 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/20101226063640/http://www.papalknights.org.uk/order-gregory.html to http://www.papalknights.org.uk/order-gregory.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928071540/http://www.bistum-regensburg.de/default.asp?op=show&id=3318 to http://www.bistum-regensburg.de/default.asp?op=show&id=3318
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040824140201/http://www.greeleynet.com/~maxalla/OKHSSub/Gallantry.html to http://www.greeleynet.com/~maxalla/OKHSSub/Gallantry.html
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) 15:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified