Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

message: See Talk:Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec for nomenclature discussion. - Montréalais
EFGHIJ: these people are correctly termed "Cardinal Archbishops". "Archbishop X Cardinal Y" is wrong. An alternative would be "X Cardinal Y, Archbishop of New York". -- Someone else 23:33 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Is "Cardinal Archbishop X Y" acceptable? - Montréalais
:I think it is, but agree with Vicki that "X Cardinal Y, Archbishop of New York" is the most common use that includes both the title and the office.  (Though doing it that way, you lose the middle names). -- Someone else 00:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
I've never seen "Cardinal Archbishop" used as a title; they're just called (for example) "Francis Cardinal Spellman" or "Cardinal Francis Spellman", depending on context.
:The personal title of a cardinal is in the form "Francis Cardinal Spellman". The informal usage since Vatican II is "Cardinal Francis Spellman" (but that is not used in wiki for pratical reasons - 90% of cardinals predate Vatican II and were never known by the latter format and it would involve renaming over a thousand years of cardinals. '"See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))  When an archbishop is made a cardinal, their office is referred to always as Cardinal Archbishop, eg, Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Archbishop of New York. (Venice has a Cardinal Patriarch.) FearÉIREANN 01:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As a separate matter, if anyone knows exactly what the current boundaries of the archdiocese are, that information would be worth including--I know it's part of NYC and some of the suburbs, but not all of either. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:04 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The New York Archdiocese covers (in NYC) Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, but not Queens or Brooklyn (which are in the not-very-imaginatively named Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens).  It also takes in Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester Counties. (I'll put this in the article, which was named "List of....etc" before it got moved around, and probably best belongs there: the archdiocese or the bishopric of the same seems to be a different article). -- Someone else 00:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
Article moved from "Archdiocese of New York" to "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York" for (1) uniformity with other Roman Catholic diocesan article titles as per wiki standard and (2) clarity between denominational diocesan territories of similar names (i.e., Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of New York, Episcopal Diocese of New York, etc.).  --Gerald Farinas 22:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the Unreferenced Section tag at the top of the History section. I recently added additional information to the section with numerous citations. I also went back and cited all of the information that was previously in the section but was without a citation. The History section now should be thoroughly cited and quite comprehensive. Ergo Sum (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of History Unreferenced Section tag 

message: @Laurel Lodged: I think you are confusing MOS:SAINTS and MOS:BIO. The former applies to article names, however the latter applies for the names of clergy and saints in article text. Since MOS:HON is a subsection of MOS:BIO, therefore the advice of MOS:HON does apply in this instance. MOS:HON states that in general styles and honorifics related to royalty, clergy, and sainthood should not be included in the article text. Additionally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Style Guidelines has a section on article titles but is generally about article text and would also apply. Imo, this guidance is similar to the exclusion of other religious styles and honorifics, such as that in MOS:PBUH. FyzixFighter (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's yourself that is misinterpreting the policies. If your interpretation was correct, then the phrase "St Thomas" could never appear in an article; it would have to apppear as "Thomas". That would leave a lot of people scratching their head. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles and honorifics for saints