Talk:Archbishop of Westminster

message: Would it not be better in the list, instead of including a new entry when the Archbishop was made a Cardinal Archbishop, to put in an extra column for the date on which the Archbishop was awarded the Cardinal's robes? David | Talk 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it necessary to have "Archbishop of Westminster" after every one ?  If we remove that, there is more space for another column.  -- Beardo 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed. -- Beardo 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: extra column

message: Should this article include comments about the Archbishop of Westminster NOT being officially a primate, as included in the article on Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor ?  -- Beardo 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a common misconception that the Archbishop of Westminster is a primate? Is it needed to include on all the 500 or so archdioceses articles that are not primatial sees that the current archbishops are not primates? Gentgeen 07:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Cardinal Hume talk page. -- Beardo 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primate 

message: It seems that at some point the image of the standard has been deleted.  Do we just delete that link ? -- Beardo 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed.  If someone can find a new version to upload, that would be nice. -- Beardo 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Who put in Longley?  That's jumping the gun a little, isn't it?  Or is there some news out there I'm not aware of right now?  --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cormac's Successor

message: Archbishop Nichols has been named a cardinal for the upcoming consistory .  While he is not yet officially one, he is a cardinal designate, and as such has been named a cardinal.  The other piece of trivia about not participating in the papal conclave doesn't really belong in this article's intro, and could be placed in the 2013 conclave article or in the Séan Brady article. I've restored my removal of the sentence and added the Vatican News article as a citation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a cardinal designate is not the same as being 'raised to the rank of cardinal' which is the status that you erroneously applied to Nichols. Your second version contradicted itself, stating in the same sentence that something had happened, and that it is to happen next month. Kevin McE (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  I am fully aware of the distinction.  I think an argument could be made that being named a cardinal designate is the same as being "raised to the rank of cardinal" before they are "created" cardinals at the consistory (also Pope Francis' recent letter on the issue would argue it isn't a rank, but I digress).  Perhaps a change to "named" cardinals would be better, since it is certainly true that Cardinal-designate Nichols has been named one.  I think there are also some readability issues with the current version that could be fixed. I'll make the changes and let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it does not look right at all.  One is not a cardinal until elevated at a consistory, and to say that someone is named as one before that is to apply a misnomer: he is not yet named Cardinal Nichols.  Indeed, the papal announcement was "I will have the joy of holding a consistory, during which I will name 16 new cardinals", i.e., the act of naming is in the future.  The implication that one is informally a cardinal before being formally created one is misleading.  Kevin McE (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that what you are arguing about here is probably a matter of translation from the Italian or splitting hairs over the meanings of English words, since in English "named" can also mean "nominated" or "scheduled to be appointed formally", I am fine with the way you have it now. I think keeping it the way I had it would require less editing come 22 Feb, and is a perfectly acceptable phrasing, I won't push the issue, because the current state does the Cardinal-designate justice, which I do not feel the others did. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 2014 Consistory