Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: moved. I'm also applying this consensus to all articles at :Category:Roman Catholic Church by country. The argument that won the day was consistency with the main article, currently at Catholic Church. This is without prejudice against an RM for any individual country where there may be a strong case for local usage taking precedent over consistency. Other arguments regarding the use of "(Roman) Catholicism" vs. "(Roman) Catholic Church" would be better off at an RM at the main article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Query If the rationale is WP:CONSISTENCY, where's the proof that those proposed are inconsistent with a wider scheme? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consistancy not so much by current level of quantity as by quality, meaning what important artcles relate both to the subject and the Anglophone world (and their respective current article name consesus). On top of that, there is the main article itself and its article name consensus. In that light, I would consider WP:Consistency a valid argument. Chicbyaccident (talk)
*Oppose, I note that in some countries such the Netherlands the official name is closer to Roman Catholic (Rooms-Katholiek Kerk abbreviated RKK) possibly because there are other Catholic churches in the country (e.g., Oud-Katholieke Kerk, the Old Catholic Church).  I note also that this is more of a nomenclature discussion given that there are dozens if not hundreds of articles and categories that use 'Roman Catholic' or  'Roman Catholicism' in their titles. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but, I think this needs a major discussion. --Erp (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Indeed there are individual such equivalent cases where a discussion could be based on other source conditions. That is why the move requests where initially made on a case by case basis. Not saying that this procedure attempt is necessarly bad though. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, however the article - which you could argue is of greater importance - has it Catholic Church by country. See also: Template:Catholic Church by country. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

text: *By consistency, I meant consistency with the main article, which is Catholic Church. The light bringer (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Are you arguing that American Catholic Church in the United States, established in 1999, should occupy the article name of Catholic Church in the United States instead? Then feel free to attempt that on its talk page. If not, on what grounds are you arguing that it "creates confusion"? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with  (Talk) 18:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me if I'm stepping away from this, and simply stating that I do not understand  the need to purge the word "Roman" from all of the "Roman Catholic" articles. I thought the article content already is written specifically about the "Roman Catholic Church" and not generically about a univeral catholic church. — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

text: We're talking organisational name here ("ic"). For the rest, your concerns reflect an aspect of why I initially proposed individual article name changes rather than en masse, as it has evolved into (although I don't categorically object to that either). As such, you do have a point in that this discussion would probably benefit from moving to Talk:Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with  (Talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, if this collection of arguments doesn't settle the issue (as it did for the Catholic Church article), I don't know what does. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with  (Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for the insight. I'm prepared to close this as move. Would anyone have any objections to me applying this consensus to the other articles in the aforementioned category? -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 Thank you. Would you mind changing the relevant categories likewise, perhaps with help from a bot if possible? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with  (Talk) 07:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

text: This should not be applied in blanket form to articles not listed in the above move discussion as those watching those articles will not have had a chance to have input here. There was a similar move discussion at Roman Catholicism in Scotland where the result was "Not moved" and the participants in that discussion may well wish to advance their arguments in a wider discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When the biggest argument was consistency with the main article of Catholic Church, it makes no sense to then move these and leave the rest inconsistent. The result of the Scotland RM was basically "wider discussion needed" and we got that here. I left open the possibility of another RM for any individual countries where a local name should take precedent. It's actually been a while since we've had an RM over the name of "Catholic Church", if you want to go that route. This was the latest RM I've come across, and it was in 2009. If there's consensus to change the name of that article, I'll move these to follow suit. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "The result of the Scotland RM was basically "wider discussion needed" and we got that here": even accepting the summing up of the Scottish result so, my very point is that anyone who "got (a wider discussion) here" specifically excludes those at the Scottish article, who evidently had an opinion on the matter. Consistency may well make sense but not if it's based on a decision arrived at with only part of the constituency consulted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had had a chance to weigh in on this discussion, it was unknown to me as well. I would have supported the move. Because the vast majority of regions in the world are not merely Roman Catholic, they have the presence of several Eastern Catholic Churches.  should be aware of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of the Holy Family of London which covers Scotland. Therefore the article about the Catholic Church in Scotland is not merely restricted to Roman Catholicism but indeed includes Ukrainian Catholicism as well, and so his revert there and his objection to the move are distinctly counter-productive. Elizium23 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold right on there. Your points may well be valid (though it could be easily argued that one could have as many articles as one likes about the various types of Catholic in Scotland, including the Roman variety) but nobody interested in the Scottish article is likely to have known about this discussion to raise or to counter them. I'm not even taking a view as to which title would be correct or best but the fact that a decision about one set of articles is being extended as a fait accompli to a wider set of articles, interested editors for which have not been consulted or had a chance to have input. That would seem to be obviously and fundamentally wrong, not to say likely to be counter-productive. A wider and fully-inclusive debate may well have won over the objectors at the Scotland article, and quite possibly other articles. Why was there not a bit of patience while other articles were listed, interested parties notified and the issue resolved consensually, once and for all? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

text: What about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism Elizium23 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't such material supposed to be located in the more accessible realm? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean by "more accessible". It seems to me that Talk:Catholic Church should be mainly about improving the article Catholic Church. WT:CATHOLIC is for centralizing discussion that is germane to the whole project, and this widespread renaming project does have meaning to the whole WikiProject, not just those who watch Talk:Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. Then I suppose I would support that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 October 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catholic Church in Armenia. 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/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church naming conventions RfC