Template talk:S-rel

Change of title for Catholic Church titles

{{editprotected}}

Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (WT:SBS#Catholic or Roman Catholic?), I ask for the header produced by the "ca" parameter to change from Catholic Church titles to Roman Catholic Church titles. Waltham, The Duke of 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, please change the colour indicated to the standard "gold" for Catholic templates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the request applies, but adjusting to gold colour in the template would still be a good idea in accordance with other similar, relevant templates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

These templates are used for many non-Catholic titles. tahc ^chat 14:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please update {{/doc}} with {{documentation}}. Per Wikipedia:Template documentation/List Thankyou. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This talk page has some rendering issues. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, was a broken signature. stwalkerster (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: "Orthodox Christianity" is not a body to which anyone has a title

Currently the code for "or" in the documentation is said to be for "Orthodox Church titles" and piped to Orthodox Christianity, but there is not one meaning to Orthodox Christianity neither is there an Orthodox Church, at least not in the way that was intented here.

Orthodox Christianity was once about the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches together (two not very related churches), and then Orthodox Christianity was about its use as term to mean correct-belief Christianity. Now "Orthodox Christianity" it is a redirect to Orthodoxy. There is no body called "Orthodoxy" to which anyone has a title.

Please change "|or=[[Orthodox Christianity|Orthodox Church titles]]" either to "|or=[[Eastern Christianity|Eastern Christianity titles]]" or to "|or=[[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox titles]]".

Eastern Orthodoxy is much larger that Oriental Orthodoxy and is sometimes what is meant by "Orthodox Christianity"... Eastern Christianity is a term that encompasses both of these and some other groups as well. I prefer "Eastern Orthodox"-- but either would be better that "Orthodoxy".

tahc ^chat 04:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and I strongly support the idea of changing the code to "Eastern Orthodox", but I oppose the idea of changing it to "Eastern Christianity". Eastern Christianity is also not a body to which anyone has a title. In fact, "Eastern Christianity" is an even broader category than "Orthodox Christianity", and includes the above-mentioned two Churches that are not very related, in addition to several others that are even less related. "Eastern Christianity" is the same type of over-arching category as "Western Christianity", which includes both Catholics and Protestants, and I think we can all agree that there are no such things as "Western Christianity titles".

The Eastern Orthodox Church has titles. The various Oriental Orthodox Churches also have titles. But "Eastern Christianity" or "Orthodox Christianity" does not have titles. Ohff (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Bazj (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We have two people that support a change to "|or=[[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox titles]]" and no one that opposes. That is WP:Consensus. Please make the change. tahc ^chat 18:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to emphasize that as far as myself and Tahc are concerned, it seems we are in agreement regarding this change. Both of us support a change to "Eastern Orthodox titles" (Tahc listed this as a preferred choice, and for me it is the only choice I support). We would only disagree on the second choice, if it came to that, but our first choice is the same. Therefore, my comment above was not meant as an argument against Tahc's proposal. I support Tahc's preferred choice. Ohff (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy cited has a qualifier: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. So while two editors can indeed be more than enough for a consensus per the cited policy, what is needed here is an "overriding consensus", that is, a consensus that overrides the existing consensus for the status quo that you want to change. You have been asked to produce that consensus before you use the {{edit template-protected}} template. Please do not reopen this request until a consensus that overrides the existing community consensus has been achieved. Be prosperous! Paine  19:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

On July 25, 2007, one editor (@Zyxw:) added the link to Orthodox Christianity (along with many other links) with no discussion anywhere. That is one person supporting a change to and no one that opposed. With luck, Zyxw, will comment here and agree with this new change, but until that happens, double the consensus still seems like "overriding consensus" to me, especially since that page is now a redirect to an unrelated page.

I also don't really follow how "overriding consensus" is supposed to be needed here, since the original consensus is on this page, and thus on the same scale as this new consensus, since it is on this same page. If I am misunderstanding how you are reading WP:CON, then let me know. tahc ^chat 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe we are supposed to propose the change, wait a certain period of time to see if anyone opposes it, and then if there are no objections (or if there were some initial objections but then agreement was reached), that means we have consensus to proceed with the change. The only trouble is, I'm not sure where we are supposed to be making the proposal and waiting for responses. On this talk page? Or somewhere else? Ohff (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ohff and tahc, you two have been very patient, and that is greatly appreciated. In this case, the community consensus arises from this edit (the actual links, including the link in question, were added to the template). So as indicated in the policy, an edit was made that nobody challenged. Additionally, that edit has been sustained without challenge for more than eight years. This is the first challenge to that edit, and to determine if your challenge is an improvement, you need to garner more support using the tips given in the consensus policy. Thank you for a high level of civility in this discussion. From here, the options include starting another discussion on this talk page and attempting to get opinions from others, for example, by use of RfC or other devices.  Paine  04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but the comments above regarding my edits are incorrect. The diff link shown above was an update to the documentation at Template:S-rel/doc, where the or parameter was already documented prior to my edit. I never made any changes to template code at Template:S-rel, where the or parameter has existed since the template was created on 15 June 2007‎ by User:KuatofKDY. I'd need to look at the articles currently using {{s-rel|or}} before commenting on the requested change. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So @Louis88~enwiki: (who made that edit) is no longer active on Wikipedia, at least not under that name.

If I didn't make it clear before, I am not seeking a change because because this has been wrong all along-- for eight years. (I think Ohff might feel different on this-- but I am making a larger point here.) I would have been fine with the way it was until recently.

Recently (a few months ago) the whole topic of the Orthodox Christianity page was changed from uppercase "Orthodox Christianity" (two types of Christianity with "Orthodox" in their name) to lowercase "orthodox Christianity" (a term for correct-belief Christianity-- its meaning generally varies with the user). We just don't have a long-standing consensus for use of the template being tied to that orthodox Christianity page, nor to the Orthodoxy page that it just became a redirect to. tahc ^chat 05:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduce two new parameters

Thanks Tahc for providing some clarity. When you say "the Orthodox Christianity page was changed" you're avoiding saying that you changed it without consensus. Still, we are where we are, and the lack of any comment at any of the relevant projects (E O or C) and the lack of any attempt to undo your changes implies an acquiescence if not an outright consensus.

We're now left with the issue that the inclusive "Orthodox Christianity" is to be replaced by a link to Eastern Orthodox Church to the exclusion of Oriental Orthodoxy. This would "break" the template for people in the OO churches, something strictly forbidden to Paine Ellsworth and me as WP:Template editors.

It seems more neutral and less "breaky" to introduce two new parameters, say eo and oo for the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox churches, to deprecate or, invite the relevant projects to work through the uses replacing or with the relevant new parameter, and then to remove or once the job is done. Bazj (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like the best long-term solution. I request that be done. tahc ^chat 14:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

While we wait for that to happen, I think changing the Orthodox Christianity link to a link to Orthodox to be (somewhat) better/ less "breaky" than leaving things as it is. Orthodox is a disambig, with links to (1) Orthodoxy, (2) Eastern Orthodox Church, (3) Oriental Orthodoxy, and then some other things. If people don't like this idea, we can at least introduce the two new parameters that Bazj proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahc (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the proposals made here by Bazj and Tahc. Also, I've been looking at the pages that link to Orthodox Christianity, and I noticed that in the majority of cases, they really should be linking to either Eastern Orthodox Church or to Oriental Orthodoxy. Most internal links to Orthodox Christianity seem to have been created by editors who simply did not know that there are two separate communions using the name "Orthodox", so they linked to a generic term. This is especially prevalent on pages about the demographics of religion in specific countries. It would be very useful if someone had the time to go through those links and fix them to point to the intended page. Ohff (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please change "|or=[[Orthodox Christianity|Orthodox Church titles]]" to "|or=[[Orthodox|Orthodox Christianity titles]]"

and create "|eo=[[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox titles]]"

and create "|oo=[[Oriental Orthodoxy‎|Oriental Orthodox titles]]"

tahc ^chat 10:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I have implemented the request to adjust the link for "or", although I have unpiped to make the link more intuitive. Does the remainder of this proposal need more discussion? Do you have a plan to migrate the parameters? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Two additions eo and oo are now on Template:S-rel/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor quibble: Shouldn't the new parameters be called "Eastern Orthodox Church titles" and "Oriental Orthodox Church titles"? By analogy with "Catholic Church titles", "Church of England titles", "Episcopal Church (USA) titles", etc. Ohff (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Updated sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. Question for Tahc and/or Ohff before we proceed and put in the effort replacing or - Is there ANY chance that Oriental Orthodoxy will need splitting in the same way that Orthodoxy did? Should we do it now if so? Bazj (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The category of "Oriental Orthodoxy" is definitely not in the same situation as the category of "Orthodox Christianity". Orthodox Christianity is a collective label for two Christian traditions that hold many things in common - and certainly look very similar to outsiders - but which have important doctrinal disagreements, and have not been in communion since the fifth century (although there have been recent discussions about reunification). Oriental Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the name of a group of six Churches that, although they are organizationally independent, are in full communion with each other, and subscribe to the same doctrines, and hold regular meetings, and officially recognize each other as being sister Churches. A useful but imperfect analogy would go like this: the label "Orthodox Christianity" is like the label "Protestantism", while the name "Oriental Orthodoxy" is like the name "Anglican Communion".

Having said all this, ultimately it's best to wait for input from the editors of the relevant articles, so I want to thank Tahc for posting notices on the two WikiProject pages. Ohff (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have posted notices of this discussion at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy. I think it will be useful to get imput (esp on the exact wording(s)) before asking to change so many pages. tahc ^chat 15:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

To track the usage of {{s-rel|or}}, I created Category:Pages using S-rel template with or parameter. Currently it contains 366 pages, 355 of which are articles. -- Zyxw (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

plan to migrate the parameters at Template talk:S-rel/oc lists

@MSGJ: asked above but I did not then answer: I do have a plan to migrate the parameters. I am drawing up lists of all the pages in Category:Pages using S-rel template with or parameter-- one list for the Eastern Orthodox bishops, one for the Oriental Orthodox bishops, one for the Chalcedonian bishops, and so forth. Then I will request at Wikipedia:Bot requests that a bot be used to convert the Template:s-rel on the lists as needed. Short lists I will do by hand. If anyone thinks certain ones may be controversial, I will do those by hand. In edits done by the bot I will ask for the edit summary to point back to this page. The list should be ready soon. tahc ^chat 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now posted at Template talk:S-rel/oc lists the proposed lists I put together on which pages to re-code by bot the as which for pages currently coded with the "oc" parameter. It should be much more clear than that sounds. tahc ^chat 04:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this up! It looks like a great plan, and, after a cursory glance at the lists, I don't see anything that jumps out as controversial. However, we're going to need to migrate some Catholic titles to Chalcedonian and Great Church, too. Ohff (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but this is a plan to deal specifically with the "oc" parameter. I would like to deal with the "ca" parameter on early bishops separately for now. tahc ^chat 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Since User:Thine Antique Pen moved them all by hand, it would seem it too small a mater to set-up and wait for a bot to do it. I propose we now remove the "oc" parameter from the template entirely. tahc ^chat 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A huge thank you to User:Thine Antique Pen for doing all that work! I agree with removing the "oc" parameter from the template at this time, since it is fully deprecated. Also, we can delete Category:Pages using S-rel template with or parameter, since it is no longer necessary. Ohff (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the TPER template, as all current requests appear to have been addressed. Feel free to add back in above new requests if needed! Mdann52 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Please now remove the "oc" parameter from the template entirely. This has not been done. tahc ^chat 18:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: (Didn't you mean the "or" parameter?) It would be better to wait before any more edits are performed to this template. Others are chiming in below with what appear to be challenges to recent changes, so please resolve this and reach consensus before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template for any further edits. Be prosperous! Paine  05:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

plan to migrate the early "ca" parameters bishops to "grt" and "chal"

Thank you again for your work! So, now we wait for the bots to be created, and then we can move on to the "ca" parameter and make similar lists and request bots again? I've never been involved with this side of wikipedia before (migrating templates, requesting bots). Let me know how I can help. Ohff (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help, but I am not sure of the best way to do the early "ca" pages.

I want to include in the discussion-- or at least notify-- some people from the Wikipedia Catholic pages, but I am not sure how. I hope some will start notice and read this while the "oc" parameter are being fixed, assuming that some people watch both sorts of pages. Lets see how the "oc" part goes and then make a plan. tahc ^chat 04:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism may be good places to start. Template:Christianity-related talkpages lists many talkpage links. Bazj (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I request "|ca=[[Catholic Church|Catholic Church titles]]" be changed to "|ca=[[Catholic Church|Catholic Church titles]][[Category:Pages using S-rel template with ca parameter]]".

I will need to cross-reference this Category:Pages using S-rel template with ca parameter with Category:1st-century bishops thru Category:11th-century bishops, but then we can have lists of which pages need changes. tahc ^chat 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done.  Paine  09:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ohff:I have now posted at Template talk:S-rel/ca lists lists of "ca" parameters changes that need to be made. Thank you to anyone who can join in doing these by hand. I have longer list of pages that may or may not need changes, but I will work more on narrowing it down more before I post that. tahc ^chat 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pre-East–West Schism parameters

I am seeing that many of these bishops using {{s-rel|or}} are bishops of an episcopal see that is now Eastern Orthodox, but at a time long before the Church split into East and West. (Back then, groups of churches did not have names in the way they do now.) But it still doesn't make sense to label one bishop an Eastern Orthodox and another bishop a Roman Catholic Church when these bodies did not separate from each other until later. (If I understand it correctly, each of the two consider the other to have left the one catholic and orthodox Church.) Also take note that Simon Peter is considered the first bishop of a major see in both the east and west, and it also makes little sense to label Andrew the Apostle and Onesimus as members of the Eastern Orthodox. It will have to be worked out later just how these parameters will be used with the others but I propose that we:

(1) Create one of these below as a parameter that can be used from c. 33 to c. 451 -- and that distinguishes the great (large) Christian Church from the likes of Arianism and Nestorianism;

(1a) "|pc=[[Four Marks of the Church|Christian titles of the catholic and apostolic Church]]" or

(1b) "|pc=[[Four Marks of the Church|Titles of the Great Christian Church]]" or

(1c) "|pc=[[Four Marks of the Church|Titles of Proto-Chalcedonian Christianity]]"

(2) And create the the parameter "|cc=[[Chalcedonian Christianity|Titles of Chalcedonian Christianity]]" that can be used c. 451 to c. 1054-- and that distinguishes the great (large) Christian Church from Oriental Orthodoxy‎, Arianism, and Nestorianism.

This does not necessarily mean that we will convert the label on every bishop between 33 and 1054 since, for example, the East–West Schism did not just happen all at once in 1054, but we need parameters to do better than we are now. tahc ^chat 23:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I support proposal (2). However, with regard to proposal (1), while I completely agree that a new parameter needs to be created for the "Great Christian Church" as it existed before Chalcedon, I'm not really happy with any of the three options given. (1a) is the correct title, but it's too long. (1b) is the one I like the most, but the wording "Great" can be ambiguous. (1c) may be regarded as non-neutral, and it may represent a neologism. So I propose a fourth option:

(1d) "|ec=[[Four Marks of the Church|Titles of the early Christian Church]]"

Notice I am also proposing that the parameter be designated "ec" (from "early Church") rather than "pc" (presumably from "Proto-Chalcedonian"). We should be careful not to attach too much importance to the Chalcedonian schism. It was not a watershed moment in the history of all Christianity everywhere. It only affected the Christians in a rather limited geographical area (initially, Egypt alone; it would take almost 100 years after Chalcedon for the division to spread to Syria and Armenia). Ohff (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I had already considered something like "Titles of the early Christian Church". The question here is does that label sufficiently distinguish the Great Christian Church from things like Arianism and Nestorianism. I think that people will want to use "Titles of the early Christian Church" for Arian bishops, as well as the non-Arian, since they can still both be called "early" (both before 451).

One possibility is to use "Titles of the early Christian Church" up until c. 300, and then use something like "Titles of Trinitarian Christianity" from c. 300 to c. 451. This would be more complicated than (1a-c) but Arianism is considered non-Trinitarian. We also might have to create another label for the Church of the East, to distinguish from the proto-Chalcedonian Trinitarians. tahc ^chat 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true that if the new parameter says "early Christian Church", then people might want to use it for Arian bishops and so on, but... is that really a problem? After all, consider the following:

• There are very few Arian, Nestorian, etc. bishops from ancient times whose names and lives are known to us. They're certainly not numerous enough to justify having separate parameters of their own. So they should probably be included in a broader category. And a broad "early Church" category seems like precisely the right place to put them.
• Most of the ancient heresies, including Arianism, never really gave birth to separate Churches of their own, distinct from the mainstream Christian Church. There was never any separate Arian Church as a distinct organization from the Trinitarian Church. Rather, there was an Arian "party" within the Great Christian Church, with Arians competing with Trinitarians as candidates for the same offices in the same organization. This was the standard way that all major doctrinal disputes played out until the 5th century: the various opposing sides did not create separate Churches, but rather fought for dominance within the same Christian Church. So there were no separate Arian titles (or Nestorian titles, etc.) until the first major schism happened, which was the one that gave rise to the Church of the East. Prior to that, Nestorius himself was Patriarch of Constantinople within the single Christian Church. He did not create a separate Church at first.

So, in brief, I would argue that there is no need to divide early Christian Church titles into separate categories. It's ok to have a single parameter for the early Church, because, although there were many competing doctrines, there was one single organization. Ohff (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ohff:: No, there was not just one organization.

The Arian church(es) were dominate among the Germanic kingdoms for seaveral centuries. Neither they nor the state church of the Roman Empire considered themselves part of the same organization. Now it is true that we do not really know many names of many of these Germanic Arian bishops, but if we call all bishops then as part of the "early Christian Church" it will lead people into the false idea that it was all one organization. tahc ^chat 22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about different time periods. I quote from the article section you linked: "The conflict in the 4th century AD had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers."

So, as I said, there was just one organization prior to the 5th century. During and after the 5th century, on the other hand, separate Churches developed. But the "early" Christian Church - if by "early" we mean up to the first decades of the 5th century - was one single organization.

Having said that, if you insist on not using the term "early Christian Church", my second preference would be "Great Christian Church". Ohff (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:S-religious

|bu=Buddhist titles
|or=Orthodox Church titles
|grt=Titles of the Great Christian Church  
|chal=Titles of Chalcedonian Christianity 
|anab=Anabaptist Church titles
|ac=Anglican Communion titles
|angl=Titles in Anglicanism
|en=Church of England titles
|ep=Episcopal Church (USA) titles
|ie=Church of Ireland titles
|sa=Anglican Church of Southern Africa titles
|se=Scottish Episcopal Church titles
|wa=Church in Wales titles
|bapt=Baptist Church titles
|eo=Eastern Orthodox Church titles
|luth=Titles in Lutheranism
|army=Titles of The Salvation Army
|meth=Methodist Church titles
|naz=Church of the Nazarene titles
|sdac=Seventh-day Adventist Church titles
|east=Church of the East titles
|cc=Community of Christ titles
|mo=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints titles
|oo=Oriental Orthodox titles
|agod=Assemblies of God titles
|pres=Presbyterian Church titles
|sc=Church of Scotland titles
|ca=Catholic Church titles
|is=Titles in Islam
|sh=Shia Islam titles
|su=Sunni Islam titles
|jw=Jewish titles
|isra=Israelite religious titles

I have set up User:Tahc/Template:S-religious with the new codes we are talking about.

BTW, the "cc" code is already taken. tahc ^chat 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Hmmm... how about "xc"? In Greek, the name "Chalcedon" begins with the letter χ. Ohff (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see new codes (from here) in the colapsed box above. I am using 3 or four letter codes. tahc ^chat 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I think the next step is adding these new codes to Template:S-rel/sandbox, which already has a few edits by User:MSGJ and one by me. Then Template:S-rel/testcases can be updated to display the new codes, a request can be posted here to move the sandbox code to the main template, and the documentation at Template:S-rel/doc can be updated. All three of those template pages should be open for anyone to edit, even though the main page Template:S-rel is protected.-- Zyxw (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... I see double or sometimes even triple overlap between some of these categories. For example, an Eastern Orthodox bishop in Russia would hold an Eastern Orthodox title (eo), but at the same time his title is also Russian Orthodox (russ) - which is a subdivision of Eastern Orthodox - and since Russia is a Slavic country, that also makes his title Slavic Orthodox (slav). Is this intentional? I feel like there would be a lot of confusion if we introduced all of these labels. Different editors would use different parameters for the same kinds of titles. For example, one Russian bishop would get his title marked with the eo parameter, another one whose article was edited by a different wikipedian would get the russ parameter, and so on.

Also, do we really want to introduce all of those different parameters that refer to the same Christian Church with different names - apst, grt, prch, nice, tri...? I thought the point was to agree on one way to refer to this Church. Introducing a single one of these options - no matter which one we pick - is better than introducing all of them together, because adding all of them to the template would cause very serious confusion.

I don't think we should ever create a situation where two or more parameters could be applied to the same title or office, because then how are editors supposed to choose which one to apply? Ohff (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is an edit showing what I am currently proposing. My intention is to avoid overlapping categories. There are several ways to do this, and my current proposal represents merely one possible way (for instance, instead of having one consolidated oo parameter, we could split Oriental Orthodoxy into its six constituent Churches - but then there should be no oo parameter in that case, since there would be no need for one). I am not set on any one specific way to avoid overlap, as long as we do avoid it. Ohff (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove all situations where two or more parameters could be applied. If two or more parameters could be applied, then editors should use the most specific parameter. Anglicanism is less specific than Anglican Communion. Anglican Communion is less specific than Church of England.

It is true the parameters marked as "<!-- c. 30 - c. 451 AD -->" all overlap in a less-than-useful way, but I am trying to have a disscusion about which to use before all the others are eliminated. Having said that, I am fine with "|Titles of the Great Christian Church" as the one left.

I guess I can also live with the others you have so far eliminated, at least until someone else asks for them to be put in. It would seem the subsections of the Eastern Orthodoxy might be the best to go.

I prefer "Islamic titles" over "Titles in Islam" since it (a) matches the two sub-types of Islam and it (b) creates a lesser impression that "Islam" is more unified than it always is. tahc ^chat 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

We can leave "Titles in Islam" as is if you want.

So-- do we agree on everything?

If so, how do we get other to comment so we can gain "overriding consensus" and get the changes done? I am fustrated that no one else is commenting.

Do we even need "overriding consensus" for new parameters? Maybe we only need overriding" for changing the old parameters. tahc ^chat 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As it stands right now (as of this edit), yes, we agree on everything. Thank you for all your work! So, we have consensus. I'm not sure if we need to get an overriding one, however... I guess we should wait for a couple more days to see if anyone else comments here, and if they don't, we can make a request to copy the sandbox to the main template, and see if it's approved? Ohff (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I was getting ready to go ahead with these changes (send 'em up the flag pole and see who salutes); however, a closer look at the testcases page stopped me in my tracks. The edit request above, which Martin partly did, converted an article link to a dab page link, and I wondered if we really want to add such a link to a template? A look at Category:Pages using S-rel template with or parameter, which was recently created and engaged by Zyxw, shows 361 pages that use the "or" param. This means that we now have 361 pages with a dab link on them. Won't this kick up some bots to disambiguate the link, and maybe some editors with scripts to come and disambiguate the link? And how will they be able to do that exactly? Should we not use an article that hatnotes to the dab page instead? (such as Orthodoxy)  Paine  22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Should also note that four days ago, just after the link was changed, the DPL bot added {{Incoming links}} to the Orthodox page that is now linked in the "or" param.  Paine  22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should only be a temporary problem... we have a plan to migrate the titles currently using the or parameter to four new parameters, and then remove or completely. However, that plan cannot proceed until these four new parameters have been added to the template, which requires that the sandbox be copied over to the live template. Ohff (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paine: The dab page link was done for a reason-- the reason is that we don't have page that covers just what the parameter wants to cover.

More importantly, the first reason for making these other changes is so we can stop having the "or" parameter that links to the dab page. I don't think it matters much either way that you want to handle it-- but the link to the dab page it already there on all those pages, and I hope your concern for it doesn't delay the only way to really fix it. tahc ^chat 23:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All is  Done with the lone exception that I linked to the Orthodoxy article rather than the dab page. I know that Orthodoxy doesn't cover all that the param wants, but in this case I think it's better to cover less than to cover too much. If you absolutely must have the dab page, then let me know.  Paine  02:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

I have posted the bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Convert deprecated parameter "or" for template:s-rel. tahc ^chat 04:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine 

@Paine: I request that the tracking category be put back in, until the bot is finished so that we can tell if we missed any.

That is, I request "|or=[[Orthodoxy|Orthodox]] Church titles" be changed to "|or=[[Orthodoxy|Orthodox]] Church titles[[Category:Pages using S-rel template with or parameter]]". tahc ^chat 04:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Be prosperous! Paine  05:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No notice for sweeping change...

There needs to be a much more advertised and central discussion before changing pre-1054 western bishops to some Titles of Chalcedonian Christianity listing rather than the much more common "catholic" that is in use. I note that the article the titles redirect to lacks any serious historical or theological references. This talk page is not a good place for such discussions - at the least they'd need to be advertised at something like the Wikiproject for Christianity. Please do NOT get any bots doing this - it's without consensus. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The current/ old parameters do not say "catholic" church they say Catholic Church. It is misleading and anachronistic to link to the modern Catholic Church for people serving before the Church even divided into the CC and EOC.

Notice of the discussion was made here at :WikiProject Christianity.

Your article summaries indicate that "Christianity" would be fine with you, but "Chalcedonian Christianity" says Christianity. "Chalcedonian" is important to distinguish it from Oriental Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, etc. If you think there is a better place to link to than the current articles then let us talk about that in more detail. tahc ^chat 01:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We're Wikipedia. We follow the sources. No source describes an Anglo-Saxon-era bishop as a "Chalcedonian Christian bishop"... they are either "Catholic" or "Christian". Follow the sources. Catholic is quite fine, actually. Until a source is provided specifically calling the bishops of the British Isles "Chalcedonian Christian bishops" ... I'm afraid I have to object to the linkage. And your notice didn't say anything beyond "small fixes" in relation to Orthodox Christianity. I'm pretty sure no one thought you were going to introduce some description without actually using sources. "Chalcedonian Christian" just is not used in the sources at all for these bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The "catholic" Church was and is part of Chalcedonian Christianity. We have sources that tell use that.

As an encyclopedia, our templates need to be standardised. We don't have any basis for treating bishops in the west different than those in the east. We also don't have a basis for treating bishops in the British Isles different than those south of the Channel.

Your interpretion of the notice at WikiProject Christianity does not match the notice itself. For example it never uses the term "Orthodox Christianity" nor even imply such a term would be meaningful. Likewise, the notice does clearly name and link to the Catholic Church. Furthermore it does indicate these changes were about the many bishops "before it split" of the CC and EOC.

Just because you are not familiar with the the term Chalcedonian does mean that does not apply. Is there some reason you object to it so strongly? tahc ^chat 02:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

no source uses the term "Chalcedonian Christian" for Anglo-Saxon era bishops. It is not used. We can't use such a term without a source that applies it to the subject. Plain "Christian" works because that's what they were and what they considered themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Most sources use "Catholic" for some centuries before the final formal split, which made very little difference to anything, as the churches had been operating independently for centuries. This matter cannot be decided in a discussion on an obscure template talk page. ""Chalcedonian" is important to distinguish it from Oriental Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, etc" clearly does not apply to countries of the Western church where there is no such danger. It is only relevant for the EO world. "As an encyclopedia, our templates need to be standardised." - no actually, they don't, especially if this leads to inaccurancy or obscurantism. Johnbod (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

1. So at what point (in your view) in time did "Most sources use 'Catholic' for some centuries"?

2. When a source uses 'Catholic', at what point in history did 'Catholic' stop meaning something like this article and start meaning something like this other article?

3. So at what point geographically (in your view) is Chalcedonian a needed term? A permited term? Should we just we just remove the all the "s-rel" headers?

4. How (in your view) is Chalcedonian inaccurate?

5. If "Chalcedonian" obscure, when is an wiki-linked encyclopedia ever permited to use "obscure" words?

6 Where and how would be discuss this in a less obscure talk page? tahc ^chat 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit war and do more changes when the change has been objected to. Continuing to do these changes (and redoing them when they've been reverted) isn't helpful to the discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again - this isn't about my "view" it's about what the sources use to describe things. Chalcedonian isn't used to refer to early Christian bishops in large chunks of history or historical writing. It isn't inaccurate nor is it accurate - it just isn't used to refer to bishops/other people. Ideally you'd have a discussion on the wikiproject page - not just a "see other page" but an actual discussion and get other views. There is no need to standardize templates and impose terms that are not used to describe article subjects. (We'll just leave aside the fact that the Chalcedonian christianity article is basically unsourced and doesn't even describe an organized church with titles (it says it's a doctrine, not a sub-Church of Christianity). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As to sources - works such as The Conversion of Britain by Barbara Yorke does not mention "Chalcedonian Christianity" - instead just discusses the conversion to "Christianity" with no qualifiers. There is no distinction made at all in the form of Christianity that the conversions took place to. Roger Collins' Early Medieval Europe makes no distinction - the conversions throughout Western Europe are just to "Christianity" - not Chalcedonian not Orthodox. Only when discussing clear heretical churches (Arian, Nestorian) does a descriptor get used. There is no entry for "Chalcedonian churches" in The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia (ed. H. R. Loyn) but there is one for "Celtic Churches". The entry on "Christianity" mentions the divergence between the eastern and western parts of the church starting in hte 6th century but that it didn't become a schism until 1054. But the entry just describes the pre-1054 church as "Christian" without qualifier. The entry for "Church, Catholic" says "It [the Catholic Church] was the undivided orthodox church before the schism of 1054, and the orthodox church of Western Chrstiendom throughout the Middle Ages.". The entry on "Church, Eastern Orthodox" says that "it [the term orthodox] is generally used to describe the Eastern church". Bernard Hamilton in Religion in the Medieval West (pp. 139-140) says "In the early Middle Ages the Catholic Church of the West was in full communion with the Orthodox churches of the East..." and does not ever use the term "Chalcedonian Christianity" to describe the pre-1054 Church. Frank Barlow in The English Church 1000-1066 never uses the term "Chalcedonian Christianity", just "Church". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England by Henry Mayr-Harting doesn't use the term "Chalcedonian Christianity" - just "Christianity". Nor does Peter Hunter Blair in The World of Bede. Chris Wickham in The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000 uses "Roman Christians" to describe Christians in the western part of the old Roman Empire. Chalcedonian is only used in reference to the eastern Church's differences with Monophysites, not ever in terms of western Christians. "Catholic Christianity" is also used repeatedly to refer to Christianity in the west, starting with descriptions of St. Augustine of Hippo, the Italians under the Ostrogothic kingdoms, the conversion of Clovis to Catholic Christianity, the Church council at Toledo in 580, Christians in the Lombard kingdoms, and christians in the Merovingian kingdoms. Edward James in Europe's Barbarians AD 200-600 describes the various barbarian tribes being converted to Christianity, or to Arian Christianity, or to Catholic Christianity. Never to "Chalcedonian Christianity". Bernard F. Reilly in The Medieval Spains (p. 16) says "The Suevic royal house had eschewed its traditional Arian Chrsitanity and converted to the Catholic faith". Gerd Tellenbach in The Church in Western Europe from the tenth to the early twelfth century never uses Chalcedonian to describe the pre-1054 church, but describes the two branches as "Roman" and "Greek". The unity before the split is just "Christianity" or "the Church". Same for John A. Thomson's The Western Church in the Middle Ages - where "western" and "eastern" are used to describe the two halves, and never is the unity described as "Chalcedonian". Richard Fletcher in The Barbarian Conversion never uses "Chalcedonian", but just "Christian". To go with a more "generalist" work (Almost all the above are scholarly publications), The HarperCollins College Outline of World History to 1648 describes the christians in western Europe as "Catholics" as against the "Arian Christians" of the Germanic tribes in the early period and the "Greek Orthodox Christians" of Italy throughout the Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In short - I'm only seeing the use of Chalcedonian Christianity in terms of internal disputes within the eastern Church. It's never used (in any of the sources I pulled off my shelves) to describe western European christianity or christians. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Replies (and why do you keep referring to me as "Jon"?):

1) Question makes no sense.

2) Depends on context but typically perhaps by 500-700, or before - see Ealdgyth's examples above.

3) Where they used Greek, Syriac etc bibles not Latin.

4) Because it is never used in the way the template uses it in general sources

5) When there is no alternative

6) Grammar! Ok, you notified the Christianity Project, but not the Biography, Middle Ages ones etc.

Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod:I apologize for called you Jon-- I am not sure why I did so.

(5) So you think there are better alternative's to "Chalcedonian"? What would a less obscure term for Chalcedonian Christianity be? tahc ^chat 23:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(2) Ealdgyth's examples above show "Catholic" over and over to mean Catholicism like this article. tahc ^chat 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ohff steps in: between the 5th and 11th centuries

Ok, if I may step in, I would like to see if I can help clarify the issue. @Tahc: has been putting a lot of work into standardizing and rationalizing the parameters used for Christian titles. It started with getting rid of a confusing parameter for "Orthodox Church titles", and replacing it with two separate parameters - one for the Eastern Orthodox Church and one for the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox. However, this raised the question of how to classify "Eastern Orthodox" bishops of the first millennium, when the Church we now call Eastern Orthodox was still in communion with the Latin West. That's how the idea of a "Chalcedonian Christianity" category was born, out of a desire for accurate categorization, so we would not call people "Eastern Orthodox" if they lived before 1054. And of course, if we are to classify the Eastern bishops as Chalcedonian because they were still in communion with the West and therefore not yet "Eastern Orthodox", then by the same logic we also ought to classify the Western bishops as Chalcedonian because they were still in communion with the East and therefore not yet "Catholic". That's how we got where we are now.

However... @Ealdgyth: is correct about the sources. Typically, sources do not refer to the Chalcedonian Church by this name, or by any other single name. Typically, they refer to its Western and Eastern parts by separate names (Latin vs Greek, Roman vs Eastern, Catholic vs Orthodox), starting as early as the 5th or 6th century, despite the fact that they would remain in communion with each other for many centuries to come. This is in recognition of the fact that there were already significant cultural and liturgical differences between the Latin West and the Greek East, even when they were part of the same Church with the same doctrines.

So, this is our dilemma. We have two options:

1. Follow the sources, and classify Chalcedonian bishops between the 5th and 11th centuries as either "Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox", despite the anachronism, because sources typically place more emphasis on the cultural differences than on the doctrinal unity between East and West in this period.
2. Create a single united category - either under the name "Chalcedonian Christianity" or under any other name that is acceptable to editors - for the bishops of this Church that were in communion with each other between the 5th and 11th centuries, despite the fact that sources usually treat them as if they belonged to separate Churches.

Neither option is perfect, but we have to choose. The first is more in keeping with the sources, but anachronistic and potentially misleading for readers. The second makes it clear that the Latin West and Greek East were united in communion before 1054, but uses a rare name not often found in the sources. I'm fine with either one, as long as it's applied consistently to bishops from both the East and the West. Cheers!

Ohff (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't any choice, though. We follow sources - we don't make up new categories to describe things. We can go with "Catholic/Orthodox" or "Western/Eastern" or we can just use "Christian". Personally, I've always favored "Christian" but "Catholic/Orthodox" is preferable to "Western/Eastern" which is preferable to a term that isn't applied in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, my interest is in applying a single standard consistently, whatever that standard may be. Tahc, what do you think about creating a parameter that says simply "Christian Church titles" and that we can use in place of the "Great Church" and "Chalcedonian" parameters we have recently introduced? It is vague, but it has the advantage of being absolutely non-controversial. Ohff (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ohff: But "Christian Church titles" is not absolutely non-controversial, it is controversial because people will use it in haphazard and conflicting purposes.

I propose we make the "chal" parameter code for "Medieval Christian titles" or for "Christian titles of the Middle Ages". tahc ^chat 23:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why limit it by time though? They aren't just Medieval - this would cover any title from 100 or so on. That's not just medieval titles. For that matter, no other set of titles is chronologically limited. Sometimes simple is best. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

People use things haphazardly all the time. That doesn't make something controversial. Is "Christian" an accurate description used by lots of sources is the real question - which the sources I've shown above support. To show something is controversial, we'd need to show sources that say something like "applying the term Christian to Anglo-Saxon bishops is controversial because ...". I'm not seeing that at all. We could also, just not categorize them at all and use the plain "religious title" parameter, as there is still a link given for the actual title, which will tell folks what church/denomination/etc the title is part of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we have been talking about the church from the 5th and 11th centuries. If you wish to propose a new parameter for all "Christian" titles at all times-- please bring that under a separate heading. A parameter for all Christian Church titles would be for a different purpose and would be problematic for other reasons. tahc ^chat 23:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, first of all, in response to Ealdgyth: There are other sets of titles that are chronologically limited. As things stand right now, for example, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox titles are chronologically limited to the period when those Churches existed as distinct and separate bodies (so, for example, Patriarchs of Constantinople before 1054 AD are not labeled "Eastern Orthodox", because they were part of a wider Christian body, despite the fact that practically everything about them - their theology and ritual - was already recognizably "Eastern Orthodox" long before 1054). Are you saying this should not be the case? I just want to make sure I understand what you are proposing... The question here is how to categorize Christian titles from the 5th to the 11th centuries, when the Churches we now call "Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" were united as one Church. Is it your stance that we should call them simply "Christian Church titles", or that we should apply the "Catholic" and "Orthodox" labels retroactively before 1054? Both of these are approaches supported by the sources.

And in response to Tahc: I completely agree that a parameter for all Christian Church titles would be problematic for many different reasons, but we may have to use it anyway because it may be impossible to get consensus for anything else. Having said that, let's try thinking of other options first. I would support "Medieval Christian titles" as a replacement for "Chalcedonian". But if that is not acceptable to Ealdgyth or other editors, how about "Christian titles of the first millennium"? Ohff (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ealdgyth has not said "Medieval Christian titles" is unacceptable-- nor given any reason for why it might be unacceptable. Ealdgyth just seems to think "Christian Church titles" is better, because it is (to him) simpler. Since "of the first millennium" is more complex than "Medieval" I expect neither of us would like it.

Most or all of the issues with "Chalcedonian" don't really apply to the 30-450 AD Church bishops, at least not the same way, so I think it muddies the whole issue to drag the pre-Chalcedonian time period now it hopes of having a one new label for of all of the first millennium. I can not think of any reason either time period would be helped by both having the same label-- but even if this were helped, it could and should be discussed separately for the two different time periods.

I am very glad that you, Ohff, would share support "Medieval" but I would like to see Johnbod, Ealdgyth, etc. either support it or give a good reason not to support. tahc ^chat 04:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Simple in this case is probably better - but anything is better than a term not supported by the sources. I didn't say "medieval" was unacceptable, but it would probably be simpler to have a catch-all "Christian church" titles option .. there will be other titles where you don't have a better fit. There isn't really a "medieval church" and... arguably applying "medieval church" to an Egyptian bishop of the 5th century would be wrong - that's not really "medieval" at all. You can't always fit everything into neat little categories - there is not really a need to either. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I proposed "Medieval Christian titles" or "Christian titles of the Middle Ages"-- which is different than "Medieval Church titles". Furthermore, Egyptian bishops were explicitly Oriental Orthodox by the late 5th century (which is distinguished from Chalcedonian and Eastern Orthodox) so there would be no reason to use "Medieval Christian" labels on them. (Early 5th century bishops were before schism over Miaphysitism and would also not needed to be labeled "Medieval".) tahc ^chat 13:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there is entirely too much fine categorizing going on here. Was there actually an "Oriental Orthodox Church" as an organized thing? With a set of separate bishops for each church? Is that how historians refer to the late 5th century bishops as "Oriental Orthodox" as opposed to ... what? Follow the sources. What do the sources call the bishops? That's how you categorize, by what the sources say. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The patriarchy in Egypt from 451-537 is uncommon in that it was a long messy conplicted situation, with various efforts to mend the 451 schism. Sources are going to talk about theological difference more than organization differences (but they did use terms like "non-Chalcedonian"), so it does not lend itself to labeling these patriarch bishops being label as one or the other very well. Indeed I did not seem to add any to them "Oriental Orthodox" before now. Using no paramaters ("religous titles") would seem to be good.

My main point still holds. There is no reason nor intent nor desire to label them "Medieval". tahc ^chat 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us return to the main question at hand: What label do we use for Western bishops from the 5th to the 11th centuries? Bearing in mind that different sources use different labels, with the two dominant ones being "Christian" and "Catholic". Could we get consensus on the label "Medieval Christian"? Ohff (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Which is going to lead readers to think that there is a specific "Medieval Christian Church" that issued such titles. Few are going to click through to whatever is linked to. Readers generally don't bother if they think they understand what a link means. The sources use "Christian" ... that should be good enough for us. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Another possibility is Western Church, a term very common in the sources. This goes to Western Christianity, which is actually a shortish article that will be useful for anyone unsure about what that means, with our "tree" diagram etc. Latin Church is a bit less helpful in this regard, but also a possibility. But generally I'm likely to agree with whatever Ealdgyth is happy with. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ealdgyth points out a reader might possibly think there was a specific "Medieval Christian Church"...

If you, Ealdgyth, were concerned a reader might think there was a specific church named "Medieval Christian Church" in the way that a Church is named today (thought that is a little silly since the word "Medieval" was not used during Medieval times), then we should use not use the term "Church". In fact, as I already pointed out once, no one ever proposed using the word "Church" with the word "Medieval" and criticism of a label that we also don't want is an obvious straw man. Please cut it out, or clearly explain why you keep at it. Back to my point--- "Medieval Christian titles" does not sound anything like there is a body named "Medieval Christian Church" and "Christian titles of the Middle Ages" would sound even less so. The term "Middle Ages" is also even more likely to be understood as a term not used at the time.

If you were concerned instead a reader might possibly think that "Medieval Christianity" was a just unified body that is also not a problem... that is more a benefit. This is because the "Latin" and "Greek" church was a unified body. It was unified organisationally (via Ecumenical councils) until 787 or later (Ecumenical councils were very intermittent). It was unified theologically until the late 9th century or later. It was unified formally (in a formal way) until 1054. It was unified spiritually until around 1054 to some, much later to others. Do I have sources for this... yes, but we don't need them. Because all this is merely an interpretation a reader might possibly make. What we would need (at minimum) is sources to say they were not a unified body. We do not have sources to say they were not a unified body. So this mere interpretation a reader might possibly make is not a problem. tahc ^chat 14:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I still see no reason to need to put Medieval anywhere in the description. Simple descriptions are better. And I'm not seeing a large number of sources that describe the office holders in the period as "Medieval Christians" - they are either "Christian" or "Catholic" or, less often, part of the Western Church. And can we please start indenting properly? I can't tell who or what is being replied to when replies are not properly indented. I'm assuming the above is in reply to something I said - but because it's only got one indention and all my replies are more indented, I'm not sure what it's in reply to. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Simple descriptions are not always better. Sometimes simple descriptions are worse.

If a simple description is misleading, then a simple description is worse. Christianity in the Middle Ages was very different than Christianity today-- to some people more different than others-- depending on the readers personal understanding of that "Christianity" is. tahc ^chat 17:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

support

Huh? Filibustering apart, I'm not seeing any support for your position. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I would be willing to accept three of the four proposals going around right now. I'd prefer "Medieval Christian titles" (no "Church" in there, so there is no way readers could think there was a Medieval Christian Church), but as a second-best option I could also support "Catholic" (which would imply switching Chalcedonian titles in the East to "Eastern Orthodox") or the ultra-generic "Christian". The only term I would definitely oppose is "Western Christian", because that seems to just be adding an extra category for no reason. If we're going to classify Western Christians in the Middle Ages as separate from Eastern Christians, then we might as well use the categories we already have - "Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" - rather than create new categories for the same groups of Christians.

I just want us to agree on something, so we can standardize the template and move on. As I have said repeatedly, standardization is my main concern, and I am perfectly willing to let others decide the standard as long as we apply it consistently after it's decided. The way I see it, right now there are three possible standards we could apply:

1. Use the simple label "Christian titles" for the Western Christians between the 5th and 11th centuries (which would imply that we should use it for the Chalcedonians in the East as well, and possibly others).
2. Use the label "Catholic Church titles" for the Western Christians between the 5th and 11th centuries (which would imply that we should use the label "Eastern Orthodox" for the Chalcedonians in the East). This is anachronistic, but supported by many sources.
3. Come up with some sort of common label for the Western Christians and the Chalcedonians in the East during the 5th-11th centuries, who were, after all, part of the same Church body at the time. This is my preferred choice, and Tahc's as well. This whole discussion started because of our desire to use such a common label (and our first idea was "Chalcedonian"). That is why Tahc suggested "Medieval Christian" as another possible common label. And I would like to add that for Christians who lived in the Middle Ages, we don't need to have sources referring to them by the exact phrase "Medieval Christians" in order to call them Medieval Christians on wikipedia. As long as sources verify that (a) they were Christians, and (b) they lived in the Middle Ages, that means we can call them Medieval Christians.

In any case, I would like to ask Ealdgyth and Johnbod: If not "Medieval Christian", then is there any common label at all that you could support that would enable us to use option 3? If not, then there's no point continuing to talk about it, and we just need to decide between options 1 and 2. Ohff (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So there is support for from both Ohff and myself for at least 3 different labels:

3-A. Titles of Chalcedonian Christianity

3-B. Christian titles of the Middle Ages

3-C. Medieval Christian titles

...but Ealdgyth does like anything but his own ideas from the start, "Christian titles" or "Catholic Church titles", and just wants to filibuster all other labels. tahc ^chat 23:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not personalize the discussion, it isn't helpful. Comment on the content, not the contributors. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is right: Please let's be civil. Also, remember that we are after all talking about a very very minor issue, on the discussion page for a template that is placed at the bottom of articles. If anything, I am shocked that it is taking so long to reach consensus. This isn't a big deal, and many of the options presented are acceptable. Let's just pick something and move on.

So, on that note: Ealdgyth, what do you think about my comment above? Ohff (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My least favorite is Chalcedonian because it is not used by any source. Next least is Medieval Christian because, again, it's not really used much. After that - I could deal with Christian or Catholic - I slightly favor Christian because it's simpler and more accurately describes the situation without being somewhat misleading to the reader. I can't see any sort of common label that wouldn't be OR to use - the sources are pretty clear on using either Christian or Catholic for describing the church in the West. (I looked over the list of various religious groupings above - are ya'll aware that there aren't really any Baptist titles? And that there isn't a single "Baptist Church"? Baptist churches aren't exactly episcopal in nature and they are not a single monolithic denomination (to put it mildly))Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I like the idea of ranking our choices. This should enable us to find the highest-ranked choice that everyone can support. Unfortunately, it turns out that my rankings are more or less the precise opposite of yours...

A. My top choice remains "Titles of Chalcedonian Christianity". The reason why "Chalcedonian" is not used by sources dealing with Christianity in the West is because this adjective is unnecessary in that context - just like, for example, many sources talking about the Western Roman Empire in Gaul or Spain or Italy in the 5th century refer to it simply as the "Roman Empire", with the adjective "Western" being unnecessary in context. Still, wikipedia can link to the Western Roman Empire when a source says simply "Roman Empire", if the source in that context is referring specifically to the WRE. Likewise, we can link to Chalcedonian Christianity when a source says simply "Christianity", if the source in that context is referring specifically to the Chalcedonian faction without naming it. This is my view, although I recognize that it's unlikely to get consensus.

B. My second preferred option is Medieval Christian, because it is both reasonably accurate (although more vague than Chalcedonian) and supported by the sources. I do not understand your objection to it. "Medieval" is a common adjective, not a proper noun. Sources do not have to explicitly call something "medieval" in order for wikipedia to be able to call it medieval. If the sources say that it happened in the Middle Ages, then we can call it medieval. That applies here. Therefore I contend that the title "Medieval Christian" is supported by the sources, in the sense that the sources call people Christians and describe them as living in the Middle Ages.

C. My third option is "Catholic Church titles". Inaccurate and anachronistic, but not as bad as "Christian", because it's more specific. Also, it is true that the Western part of Chalcedonian Christianity in the 5th - 11th centuries had already developed different liturgies, different rituals and different practices from the Eastern part (and eventually also different doctrines, near the end of this period), so in that sense we can call it by a separate title (such as "Catholic"), even though it was still formally united with the East.

D. My least preferred option is "Christian titles". Yes, of course it's explicitly present in the sources, but it is so broad and all-encompassing that it is nearly useless as a categorization. Ohff (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind you need to deal with the papal titles also. I don't edit there - but not saying "Catholic" on them is plain wrong. Whatever is decided on the western bishops - having papal succession boxes NOT say "Catholic" is a big issue. I don't like Medieval Christian as much as "Christian" but it's bearable. But the papal succession boxes need to be dealt with also - Johnbod was the one that noticed the changes there. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Popes before 1054 are also recognized as legitimate Popes by the Eastern Orthodox Church (and even called "Orthodox" by some Orthodox sources)... just like the Patriarchs of Constantinople before 1054 are also recognized as legitimate patriarchs by the Catholic Church (and even called "Catholic" by some Catholic sources). In fact, a few days before our discussion started, the succession boxes on Patriarchs of Constantinople before 1054 had already been changed from "Orthodox" to "Chalcedonian" for precisely this reason. They will also be affected by whatever we decide here (e.g. if we decide on "medieval Christian", they will be switched to "medieval Christian").

But if it's unacceptable for papal succession boxes to not say "Catholic", then this suggests to me a fifth option for how to deal with the issue: We could rename the "Chalcedonian" category to "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox titles". This has the disadvantage of being long, but it is both accurate and supported by the sources, and it ensures that papal succession boxes will continue to have the word "Catholic", and succession boxes for Patriarchs of Constantinople will once again have the word "Orthodox" in them.

In fact, I really like this option. This has become my new top choice, above all the other four. Ohff (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox"="Christian" pretty much... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, because there were also Arians, Nestorians, Miaphysites/Monophysites, and so on... And although wiki articles for Arian bishops, for example, are not numerous enough to have their own pre-defined parameter, we already have succession boxes that were manually edited to say "Arian titles". Using a broad "Christian" label would both (a) not make it clear if the medieval Western bishops we're talking about were Arians or Trinitarians - a very important distinction in the historical period we're talking about - and (b) it may very well confuse readers who are not familiar with the time period, because the word "Christian" in the present day certainly does not mean "Catholic or Orthodox". Ohff (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Since it has been ignored in this torrent of blather, I will repeat my suggestion above: "Another possibility is Western Church, a term very common in the sources. This goes to Western Christianity, which is actually a shortish article that will be useful for anyone unsure about what that means, with our "tree" diagram etc. Latin Church is a bit less helpful in this regard, but also a possibility. But generally I'm likely to agree with whatever Ealdgyth is happy with." And of course an Eastern equivalent (which could be O or EO). All options are preferable to "Chalcedonian", which will just puzzle people. I don't mind Popes not being Catholic so much, until a date around 600, but they should be so well before 1054. "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox titles" is ok. Or just "Christian". Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the excessive length of all this (as I said, I'm shocked it's so difficult to find consensus on such a minor issue), but please read the discussion so far, because we seem to have at least narrowed down the options and are currently listing our preferences in order to hopefully reach a compromise.

Also, I did not in fact ignore your suggestion. Earlier today, I wrote: The only term I would definitely oppose is "Western Christian", because that seems to just be adding an extra category for no reason. If we're going to classify Western Christians in the Middle Ages as separate from Eastern Christians, then we might as well use the categories we already have - "Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" - rather than create new categories for the same groups of Christians. So, I oppose your suggestion, not because it's wrong, but because I find that it complicates things unnecessarily. If we're going to have separate labels for Western and Eastern Chalcedonian Christians in this period, we should just go with the established ones.

But that "if" lies at the heart of all disagreement here. This entire thing was started precisely because Tahc and myself believe we should not have separate labels for the two components of what was at the time a single united Church (the gray line in the "tree" diagram you mentioned, between 451 and 1054), so we came up with "Chalcedonian" as a common label for both. I understand that is not an acceptable option to you and Ealdgyth. So the question is, can we come up with a different common label that would be acceptable.

And right now, my most-preferred option would be "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox titles". You've said that this would be ok with you. I think we may have the beginning of a consensus, then. Let's see what the others say. Ohff (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I never proposed "Western Christian". The two I proposed are established terms, unlike your preference. I have listed my preferences above, but you evidently have not read that either. To describe the Early Medieval Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as "a single united Church" goes against the sources, which is the cause of the difficulties here. Only in theory was this the case. There is no simple widely-used term because the thing you want a term for did not really exist. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to be as courteous as possible, I really want nothing more than to resolve this issue and move on, and I think we are really making progress now. I said "Western Christian" by accident, when I meant to refer to "Western Church", your suggestion. And when I said it's not an "established" term, I meant it's not already present in this template, whereas "Catholic Church" is already present. Finally, I never implied that you didn't list your preferences - I merely emphasized that Ealdgyth and I had also done that.

Now, regarding the assertion that "the thing I want a term for did not really exist"... Is it your contention that, for example, the Popes of the Byzantine Papacy were not part of the same Church as the Patriarchs of Constantinople in the same historical period? That seems like an extraordinary claim. I am traveling right now and I do not have access to my books or most of my files, but if you are willing to wait until tomorrow, I am sure I can produce plenty of sources referring to the Popes of Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople as belonging to the same Church. The only thing the sources don't agree on is what to call this Church, but they do agree it was one body (so, for example, many Catholic sources refer to the Patriarchs as Catholic, and many Orthodox sources refer to the Popes as Orthodox - agreeing that unity existed, but disagreeing on the name).

In any case, we do not have to agree on the above topic, we only need to agree on what label to use for the purpose of this template. And if the label "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox titles" is acceptable to both of us, that is all we need. Ohff (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If your sources are at all detailed on the subject, they will tell you that although the unity of the church was a convenient fiction accepted by both sides, they increasingly operated entirely separately, and by the end of the period decades could go by without top-level contact. That there were almost three centuries between the last joint council (the Second Council of Nicaea in 787) and the final split tells you something. As does the lack of change or general excitement when the schism finally occurred, which all sources stress. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

By the end of the period, yes. But in the beginning of the period - certainly during the 5th to 7th centuries, and extending into the 8th - unity was very real, with regular communication between Rome and Constantinople, with several joint councils, with the Popes being appointed by the Emperor in Constantinople most of the time, and with southern Greece under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome.

So if you are saying that AD 1054 is too late as a cut-off point at which to start talking about separate Churches, then I may agree with you, but I'm sure you could also agree that AD 451 is far too early. The division developed gradually, mostly between the 8th and 11th centuries.

The problem is, for the purpose of categorization on wikipedia, we have to pick some point at which to start referring to the Popes as leaders of a separate "Catholic"/"Western"/"Latin" Church. 1054 is simply the conventional date for the Schism, so it's an obvious choice. If you would prefer an earlier date, that's fine with me, but it may be hard to find a specific earlier date that is supported by the sources. Do you have one in mind? Ohff (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A couple of comments to things mentioned above.

1. Also totally agree we should not have separate labels for the two components of what was at the time a single united Church. Roger E. Olson primarily uses the term "Great Church" for this body up until 1054 in his book The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform and other writings.

2. Using "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox titles" is worth considering but it would be better to use the less anachronistic labels & links to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: [[Catholicism|Catholic]] and [[Orthodoxy|Orthodox]] Church titles.

3. There was a complaint about not using "Catholic" on early popes-- I (and Johnbod, it would seem ?) think not labeling them Catholic (in yet another place on the page) is not problem-- even a benefit-- since they were labeled "Catholic" (in the narrow sense) only much later. BUT-- there are many ways to both use "Catholic" and not use "Catholic" in the {{s-rel}} box. For example, Pope Linus currently uses {{s-hou | Papal succession}}, and this template could be used, such as {{s-hou | Catholic Church Papal succession}}. (But I also hope these papal-related details can be figured out later, or at least under a separate heading. tahc ^chat 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I completely agree, as you know. But if Johnbod would prefer to use an earlier date as the cut-off point at which to start talking about separate Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I'm willing to support that too. Really, any date between the Council in Trullo (692) and 1054 could work. It may be difficult to find sources supporting any specific date other than 1054, but, for the sake of getting consensus, I will support any date that other editors suggest, as long as it's not unreasonably early (i.e. as long as it's not before the 7th century).

2. I was going to suggest that we link to History of Christianity during the Middle Ages, like this: [[History of Christianity during the Middle Ages|Catholic and Orthodox]] Church titles.

3. I fully support not worrying about those details right now... this has been complicated enough as it is. Ohff (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's complicated because attempts are being made to make things too granular/categorized/etc. It's trying to categorize something that isn't categorized in the sources. That's why "Christian" is fine for pre-1054, because there wasn't this fine doctrinal categorizing going on. The reason the sources use "Christian" (and only categorize finer points like "Arian Christian" or "Nestorian Christian" or "Monophysite Christian") is because their wasn't a lot of worry about fine distinctions. Plain and simple, we follow sources. I've shown a lot of historians above - more could be shown. To add one - Kevin Madigan's Medieval Christianity: A New History calls the Western church either "Christian" or "proto-Catholic" or "Catholic" even long before 1054. I've never seen "Great Church" used by any historian covering early Christianity or medieval Church history. I'd be fine with "Christian" or "Western Christian" or "Catholic". I could barely deal with "Medieval Christian". All of these terms are used in the sources. Follow the sources, don't try to make things finer categorized than the sources will support. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

But... the level of categorization that Tahc and I are proposing is actually in between your top two choices, in terms of granularity. We are proposing something more granular than "Christian", but less granular than "Catholic"/"Western"/"Latin". The category "Christian" includes Catholic, Orthodox, Arian, Nestorian, and so on. The category "Catholic" excludes Orthodox, Arian, Nestorian, and so on. What we are proposing is a category that includes Catholic and Orthodox, but excludes Arian, Nestorian, etc. We are saying that "Christian" is too broad and "Catholic" is too narrow.

Having said that, where do you stand with regard to the most recent proposal of "Catholic and Orthodox Church titles"? Ohff (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add something on a personal note: The reason I am not letting this go is because as long as we do not have consensus here, the succession boxes for Christian bishops of the first millennium are in limbo, with some having been transitioned to the combined category "Chalcedonian" (including all the ones on the Eastern side, and some on the Western side) - a category that we've agreed to give up, but cannot replace with anything until we get consensus - while the majority of succession boxes (on the Western side) continue to say "Catholic". In other words, at the moment there is no standard way to refer to bishops of the first millennium on Wikipedia. And as a person whose main concern is standardization and clean-up, this bothers me. That is why I must insist on finding a solution to this. But I firmly believe that any decision is better than no decision. Although I have my preferences, the most important thing is to get consensus, and so I just want to reiterate my willingness to support any option that gets majority support. I am hoping that "Catholic and Orthodox Church titles" will be the option capable of doing that, but if something else comes along, that is fine too. As long as we can reach agreement. Ohff (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Titles of the Great Christian Church"

a) the pipe goes to 4 marks of the church, which article doesn't have anything to do with this title; b) is there a consensus here to call the diocese of Constantinople "the Great Christian Church"? A Google search doesn't show anything but Wiki articles about the bishops thereof. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It was left this way because of an unresolved discussion that fizzled out about a year and a half ago and hasn't been revisited since (see the section above). Basically, the issue was this: What do we call Church titles from the period before the East-West Schism of 1054?

The previous status quo had been to anachronistically label Western bishops as "Catholic" and Eastern bishops as "Orthodox" even if they lived many centuries before the schism. An attempt was made to replace this situation with a common name for the pre-Schism Church.

The attempt basically failed, as we could not agree on what to call the pre-Schism Church and at which point in time the Western bishops should start being called "Catholic". The result is that some bishops are listed as being members of the "Great Christian Church" (one of the proposed names for the pre-Schism Church), while others were left with the title "Catholic" or "Orthodox" based on their geographical location. Ohff (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-pipe for "Great Christian Church" (pre 451)

Rather than linking the fairly off-topic "Four Marks of the Church", we should be able to agree to something better.

I propose changing pc=[[Four Marks of the Church|Titles of the Great Christian Church]] → pc=[[Proto-orthodox Christianity|Titles of the Great Christian Church]] or something similar. I do not recall any objection to this idea in the past. tahc ^chat 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's one. This is a brief article on an obscure neologistic term, that has gained very limited acceptance, certainly as a denominational label for individuals. The problems raised by just calling all Latin speakers Catholic and all Greek-speakers EO are far fewer and less significant. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

All the earliest Christians spoke Greek, even in Rome. You want to label the earliest bishops of Rome as "EO"?

There are many better articles to link to than the current one. How about [[Early Christianity|Titles of the Great Christian Church]] or [[Christian Church|Titles of the Great Christian Church]]? The Four Marks of the Church is a theological idea-- not any sort of theological group. tahc ^chat 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly - and for how long exactly did "All the earliest Christians spoke Greek", if they ever did, which we don't of course actually know - not very long. Your other 2 suggestion are certainly much better targets, except that one begins (rightly I think): "Early Christianity is the period of Christianity preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325", so should only be used for that period. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Even in the West (where most non-Christians used Latin) Christians wrote only in Greek until Tertullian. His conversion was about 197 AD, but the use of Greek in Western worship liturgy would have lasted even longer. tahc ^chat 01:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• I see your point about bishops in the range 325–451 AD, but we could link those bishops to either [[History of late ancient Christianity|Titles of the Great Christian Church]] or a more general article like the 451–1054 time frame, i.e. [[Christian Church|Titles of the Great Christian Church]].

Why not link it to Great Church, the closest article, an historiographical one, to what the pipe link actually says? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem (of course) is that Great Church is a term (one of many) used today by the Roman Catholic church for itself. The whole point is to use a term and a wiki-link that purposely refers to the whole of what latter became to the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church, etc. etc. tahc ^chat 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you obivously use this terminology because it is handy above, and you still apply it as a pipelink, I am unable to understand why you push for Christian Church as link destination (a largely Protestant concept, despite that Protestant emerged in 16th century). Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixes for Chalcedonian bishops (451–1054)

Since we are looking at this, I propose we also finally agree to changing ca= → chal= and eo= → chal= for the bishops in the time range 451–1054 AD.

Any objections or agreement? tahc ^chat 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

All my objections from before still apply. No sources call any Anglo-Saxon bishops of this period "Chalcedonian Christians". We follow the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So you assume all bishops in the British Isles are non-Chalcedonian? Why would we "assume" they are anachronistically Catholic? That would be impossible.

So you don't object to fixing the labels outside the British Isles? tahc ^chat 21:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should follow what the sources call any bishop. I just happen to know that no source labels the denomination/variety of AS bishops as "chalcedonian". Follow the sources in the biographies and secondary history works. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've only worked on one bishop in this time period, Asser, and I'm not an expert, but what Ealdgyth says makes sense to me -- we should use whatever the sources use, rather than regularizing in a way the sources do not. Certainly in Asser's case I've only ever seen him referred to as Christian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose using "Chalcedonian" in succession boxes, which will be guaranteed to confuse almost everyone. It is simply not a term sources use to describe individual churchmen. In the 2105 discussion there seemed consensus not to do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

We should have a consistent way label bishops that is both meaningful and follows non-anachronistic sources.

(Per Asser) maybe we should use a label that says [[Christian Church|Christian titles]], unless sources use a suitable meaningful term, like Arianism or Oriental Orthodoxy. tahc ^chat 18:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. We didn't agree before and I don't think we will agree now. At this point I'm basically in favour of anachronistically listing Western bishops as "Catholic" and Eastern Chalcedonian bishops as "Eastern Orthodox", because - let's face it - that is generally what the sources call them (presumably because individual sources generally deal with specific bishops and specific regions, so they have no need to worry about what to call the Chalcedonian Church in general). I am personally opposed to the underlying idea that Wikipedia must categorize things with the exact same words that sources use, because different authors don't have any need or obligation to be consistent with each other, whereas we, as an encyclopedia, should have consistent standards. Sometimes we are in a situation where different sources use different labels for the same thing and we have to decide what to call it. That is the issue we are facing with "Chalcedonian Christianity". In different sources, it is variously called Orthodox, Catholic, Trinitarian, Chalcedonian, or simply Christian. Ideally, we should figure out how to apply a single consistent name for it on Wikipedia, at least for the purpose of categories and infoboxes (not article text). But there seems to be very strong opposition here to any attempt to apply consistent categorization when the sources don't have it. So, I give up. Ohff (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with that. It is the least bad option, and that's what we want. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. However, something makes me assume Tahc will just have it the user's way anyway. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing something now that I did not propose before. People are already claiming this cannot be solved-- but failing to give any reasons against my new idea. Even Ohff claims to give up, but clearly does not like the anachronistic idea. How can giving wrong information possibly be the "least bad option"?

Sources call these people part of the Christianity-- we can just use [[Christian Church|Christian titles]]. tahc ^chat 01:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would support that too (just using "Christian titles" for the pre-1054 bishops). Ohff (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

While I maintain that [[Great Church|Great Church titles]] would be better, I'd support [[Christianity|Titles in Christianity]] as next best. PPEMES (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

can of worms!

Sorry, I didn't intend to open a can of worms! I appreciate all the thought that has gone into this, you are clearly an intelligent bunch. Discussing Byzantine history and hagiography with westerners is one of my favourite things. Here's my question now. When I look at an article on say St Paul I of Constantinople, I see a box at the bottom of the article titled "Titles of the Great Christian Church". When I look at say Metholdius I of Constantinople I see Titles of Chalcedonian Christianity. And I ask myself, why did someone go the effort of putting these here? What are these phrases in these boxes supposed to add to the article? I don't mean that sarcastically or rhetorically, but as someone coming to the article, I say to myself "I see they put it here, it must be important, but I don't see it".

Chalcedonian Christianity is a term referring to Christian denominations adhering to the Definition of Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian Definition of was adopted in 451, so to call Paul I of Constantinople part of Chalcedonian Christianity would be anachronistic.

The succession boxes normally have a header templates with each one, so that people know what kind of title is listed. It could be a basic as "Religious titles"-- but would normally say something about what sort of body the title is of/with/for, like "Titles in Lutheranism". You could say (if you want) it is a not worth all this effort, but at this point to leave out the information makes it look like we don't know the information. Editors would almost certainly come along and put some text there to say something, because they have them everywhere else and it seems easy to fill in. tahc ^chat 04:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)