Catholic liturgical rites is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
Dear A. While editing a member of this category I have become aware that many such members' page-titles are capitalised, non per wiki style, as indeed is the cat itself and perhaps other related articles. This appears to be, at least partly, because they are derived directly from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is in general heavily overcapitalised, and in fact over-punctuated.
However, I am unable to move some of them because correctly-styled redirects already exist. Now, to digress, you will be relieved to hear that I have finally understood the term "parallel history", though I must say it's a very unfortunate term as for a long while I took it to mean the exact opposite of what it does mean. Anyhow, there are quite a few pages to move and I shall not be able to move some of them myself. Could you look over the cat. and let me know if you agree there's no reason why phrases like the above should be UC? I am quite happy to do what I can, but it may end up with quite a few pages at the holding pen. Please advise at my talkpage.
(Sorry I missed the Barker discussion above, though I think the outcome is fair and appropriate: please call me if reqd in similar cases, did not know you were a local lad) Regards Redheylin (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understand about cats. Was asking your opinion about the style issue and bulk requesting dozens of moves - and I guess I ought to attempt the moves myself first? Redheylin (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles do you want to be moved to which new names? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I say, AA, there are dozens of them in the above and surrounding cats, because the material, inc. titles, seems to have been pasted direct from articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Redheylin (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "every article in (list of categories) whose title has wrong capitalization"? If so, which categories are the "surrounding categories"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) CfD will be sympathetic to a bulk nom, if the issue is exactly the same. You might even be able to speedy them. You might also look at the creators, & make sure they are aware of the issue. But are there in fact that many? "Roman Catholic Church" is correct imo. Johnbod (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry: I am unable to account for the difficulty in understanding the matter. The problem is with articles that have been pasted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, of which there are dozens IN THE ABOVE CATEGORY AND SURROUNDING CATEGORIES. For example, the words "Rite", "Mass", "Prayer", "Hour", "Month" when appearing in page titles do not appear to conform to wiki style but rather to Encyclopedia style in this respect. There are many examples such as "Star Boys' Singing Procession". The problem extends to category names also; we have Category:Catholic_liturgy yet Category:Catholic Liturgical Rites. There is a large number of both articles and categories in question, I cannot possibly list them all here, but they are just a click away. However, the state of affairs does not apply to all articles in any given category, so, while I am glad to hear of a "bulk" option, articles proposed for moving would have to be identified and agreed singly. Redheylin (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Cfd does is rename the category without affecting the contents. For that you need to move the article in the normal way. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this. But, please, which categories are the "surrounding categories"? Does it mean "every subcategory and subsubcategory and subsubsubcategory etc of Category:Catholic liturgy"? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AA, generally speaking, this began because I edited an article of the kind I described, Celtic Rite and noticed that the word "Rite" was capitalised, as it was in the original article. I could not see a reason for this but found that the form "Celtic rite" already existed as a redirect, and also that all such words capitalised in the CE 1913 were generally capitalised when they appear in titles. Some such cases are defensible, perhaps, many are not. Now, the category "Roman Catholic Church" is massive and I cannot say I have discovered every instance, yet of this entire category each subcategory I have looked at seems to contain at least one such article. There are even some, such as Libera Me, where the title is capitalised but the lede text (correctly in my view) is not. So, I first became aware of the problem vis a vis liturgy categories, and it is perhaps most prevalent there but not confined there by any means. Redheylin (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization of "rite" is highly variable, see and similar searches. It partly depends on the exact context. It can be a proper name, but not always. In the same way, if "Libera Me" is treated as the title of a work, which it very often is, it is arguable it should be capitalized. It is currently capitalized in the article text btw. Category:Latin religious phrases certainly shows a variety of treatments, but I'm not sure matters are as simple as you suggest. Te deum would surely be wrong? Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, You note that "Libera Me" is capitalised in the lede: sorry, I meant in the actual text quoted there. An example where the first words differ from the title would be Axion Estin. I hope you can see that there's considerable inconsistency here, though, as I also said, some cases are arguable. I had not suggested that all matters were simple; I wrote "Some such cases are defensible, perhaps, many are not", asking for opinions and saying "articles proposed for moving would have to be identified and agreed singly". You mention "Te deum": it is of course usual to treat "God" as a proper name and I imagine wikipedia would follow that. On the other hand I'd propose that words such as "rite", "liturgy" and "prayer" are ordinary terms. At any rate there's a great lack of consistency. It seems to me that, if we are to treat of single examples, which I had meant to avoid, and since AA has offered no views, that we rather need to find a better forum for this discussion. I'd briefly add that another trouble with these unedited CE articles lies in the large tracts of untranslated Latin included. Redheylin (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I (virtually) said above, I don't know I'd support de-capitalizing the various "Rites", which I think can all be proper names. Liturgy & prayer probably often should not be, though surely not Lord's prayer? If a word is correctly capitalized in some contexts but not others, the article title should be capitalized, imo. I suggest you mention this discussion at the RCC project. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suspect the capitalisation difference may be linked to an "inside and outside the Catholic world" difference, and we are supposed to be outside looking in: I am also not sure that UC taked precedence. We need consistency, consensus and style policy throughout at any rate. Do you want to help me pursue it? It's a side issue for me, spinning off early British history, but I can see it should be fixed - a lot of these articles have just been pasted in and never redacted. Redheylin (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, especially as we don't seem to agree. You must see that just because it is "Libera me" in the sung text does not mean it may not be "Libera Me" as the title of the piece, in a track listing for example? Which is often used, though the other is too. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am more interested in style and consistency than in arguing single particular cases at the moment. You do not think there is any problem at all?Redheylin (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure some should be moved/renamed, but I'm not seeing the numbers you suggest. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
