Talk:List of communities using the Tridentine Mass

message: I removed the superiors, etc, from the page and the external links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a web directory. If an article exists for each society, institute, etc. then that's a perfectly fine place to include the superior and external link. I also made the list use list formating, to clean it up a bit, make the editing page smaller, and conform to the style guidelines. 
On another subject, as this page is list, the title isn't very precise. I'd suggest moving to List of communities using the Tridentine Mass in communion with Rome, or something similar. Right now, there are schismatic and other groups using the Tridentine Mass that are not in communion with Rome and have no plans to seek communion, who would be covered by this title but are not included in the page. Gentgeen 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "in communion with Rome" is perhaps not sufficiently precise. SSPX claims not to be out of communion with Rome and can quote a declaration by - I don't immediately with certainty remember who, but it was probably Cardinal Castrillón - that communion exists, but it is not complete.  What about "List of Church-approved communities that use the Tridentine Mass"?  This too can be improved.  Lima 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits and suggested move 

message: Since February 2018 the template on top of the article cries to Heaven for sources. I’ve begun to clean up this page recently and one of the things I wanted to do was adding references. But I’ve run into a particular problem. Probably the most widely useful sources in this case would be their websites, since there won’t be many other sources (except maybe occasional mentions in local newspapers) and even fewer up-to-date sources, as the majority of these communities are quite new and quite small. I think this is OK, since their websites fall into the category of [sources as sources on themselves]:
# the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The fifth point is true if the community has its own article which includes other sources besides its website. I don’t know how it applies to items listed without its own article. Should sources confirming its existence be included?
But adding references to their own websites would be a redundancy, since many of the items on the list are already external links to these websites. Other communities have their own articles which sometimes mention the Tridentine Mass being celebrated therin and sometimes don’t; sometimes the mention is references and sometimes isn’t. Should references be added when the communities’ article mentiones them using the Old Rite or is it enough that the mention in the article is sources? I don’t know how to deal with this particular problem and am looking for insight. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I′ve decided to add sources to those entries which lack their own articles and leave others without refs. I will later add appropriate info with refs to the separate articles. If anyone has any comments please let me now. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Most of this type of list article on Wikipedia are limited in scope to only notable entities, designated usually by whatever has an article. Should this list also be limited to communities which have a Wikipedia article? Elizium23 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. Many groups on this list are small and recent and it′s hard to even find sources on them besides their own websites. I would be in favor of removing all or most of the items without an article. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Redux: this article purports to cover only communities which are in communion with the Holy See. I have removed "canonically irregular" entries. Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit scope 

message: Thank you for trying to add a map into the article, but the map you have added is unfortunately inaccurate (only shows some countries, while the linked external website has many more) and also probably copyrighted – i.e. based on cartographical data from unstated source and being merely a screenshot thereof, as revealed by the buttons on the left (with icons, some of which are possibly also copyrighted). I suggest that map is being replaced by a newer one, which should be created based on freely licensed map data, charting all countries appliable (based on the external source, not just this article), clearly stating the source during the upload so as to remove any doubt (and, possibly, provide proper attribution), and providing a year as of which the map is accurate in its description in the article. --Blahma (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map copyright and accuracy