The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as opposed (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Brisbane → Template:Catholic Archbishops of Brisbane – This template was moved today. However, it is currently the only one named as such, and that would be problematic per WP:Consistency in accordance with the other equivalent contents of Category:Catholic ordinaries navigational boxes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose on both procedure and substance. User:Chicbyaccident's argument of Consistency relates to that user's own mass edits and not to any established consensus. During November 2016, Chicbyaccident renamed and recategorised many articles etc from using the term "Roman Catholic" in their title to simply "Catholic" (including this template). On 20 November 2016 I noticed these edits occurring on my watchlist as Chicbyaccident was changing Australian articles. Having seen no mention of any discussion about this mass renaming, I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2016#Renaming of Australian articles from "Roman Catholic ...." to "Catholic ...." to establish if there was a consensus to do these renamings. The discussion showed there was no consensus within that project (indeed there was opposition especially in the absence of consensus) and the point was made that there are a number of forms of Catholicism which are Catholic but not Roman Catholics, so the terms are not interchangeable. On that basis I reverted some of Chicbyaccident's edits I was aware of through my watchlist, as these articles etc were all Roman Catholic rather than Catholic more broadly. Around 25 March 2017, Chicbyaccident undertook a large number of similar edits (replacing "Roman Catholic" with "Catholic" in titles). Again, I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Renaming of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" and again the discussion shows that there is no consensus and opposition to these renamings. On that basis, I reverted the changes and restored this template to use "Roman Catholic". From a procedural perspective, I think it is inappropriate to discuss the naming of this particular template in isolation of the many articles, templates etc which have been renamed by Chicbyaccident in the absence of any consensus. I think the issue should be discussed and agreed in the affected projects more generally, that is, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and, for the Australian articles/templates, also Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia should be invited to participate, where one would expect to find greater awareness of the specific nature of Catholicism (Roman or otherwise) of each diocese etc. I assume other national WikiProjects would also wish to be aware of the discussion for similar reasons. Wikipedia:Consensus should be the basis of any mass renaming of articles etc. Chicbyaccident's claim of Consistency is to that user's own mass edits and not any consensus.

My objection to the specific renaming of this template is as follows. As the template's history shows, this template was first created in 2011 named Template:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Brisbane, and has remained with that name until the two mass renamings by Chicbyaccident mentioned above, both of which I reverted due to lack of evidence of any consensus following the discussions at the project talk page. This template is a navbox for the Archibishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. The diocese and subsequent archdiocese is and has always been Roman Catholic; its bishops and archbishops have also been Roman Catholic. There are other Catholic chuches in Brisbane which are not Roman Catholic; there is the Society of Saint Pius X who operate a number of locations with the geographical boundaries of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese but are not part of that Roman Catholic archidiocese and do not accept the authority of its archibishop. There is also St Mary's in Exile at South Brisbane led by Peter Kennedy (priest); this priest and his congregation were formerly part of the Roman Catholic church but broke away over disagreements with the archbishop over a variety of beliefs and liturgical practices; it also is not part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane following the refusal to accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane. There may well be others that I don't know about. So, in Brisbane, we do have both Roman and non-Roman Catholics and I see no reason to mislead the reader that the archidiocese and archbishop articles/templates etc are embracing all forms of Catholicism when they are specifically concerned only with Roman Catholicism. Given that the Society of Pius X is operates across Australia, I think we need to be careful in our use of "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" in Australia more generally. Kerry (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose headline move => Use "Roman Catholic" where that is the intent. The simple "central point of reference" I choose is the first sentence of the WikiProject Catholicism project page: WikiProject Catholicism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Catholic Church, including the Latin and Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See.. Clearly this wikiproject considers Eastern Catholic churches to be different to Roman Catholic/Latin Church churches, but still "Catholic". We recently made a point of naming Australian articles to include the denomination in their titles where relevant for consitency, even when not required for disambiguation. Some Anglican and Roman Catholic dioceses had matching names, so all were named to include the denomination even if they did not conflict, and Uniting Church in Australia Synods got the denomination name in their titles too. Without any reference point of how many "non-Roman/Latin" Catholic churches/dioceses/bishops/whatever that there might be in Australia, it is clearly appropriate to name articles that could be misleading with sufficient precision to avoid that confusion. Hence if it is necessary to say "Catholic", and non-Romans are not included, then the article/template should be titled "Roman Catholic". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but neither of you are producing a WP:Global perspective. This subject is not about Australia. This is about the Catholic Church. In case you want to change that article name, please state your arguments there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing Template:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Brisbane and Brisbane is in Australia. We are not discussing the article Catholic Church. Kerry (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: are you able to point us at a global, agreed consensus that Roman Catholic Archdioceses should not have the word "Roman" in their article or template names? At the moment, as Kerry said, we are discussing this specific template. I am happy to learn and be educated about the organisations of my fellow Christians. I am currently unaware of the distinctions between Roman, Latin, Eastern and Orthodox, just as you might be unaware of the intricacies of Calvinist, Reformed, Presbyterian and Methodism and the ways they have developed over centuries and places. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no proposal or attempt that I know of to change articles on dioceses from existing "Roman Catholic" naming to "Catholic". However, yes, the article does contain consensus, as does the category tree as far as I am concerned, logically also circumfering templates, as indicated in all but this very template in its main template category. For the record, yes there are denominations that consider themselves Catholic, including Protestant: Anglo-Catholic, Independent Catholic (including Old Catholic), Evangelical Catholic - sic - and perhaps some more. None of these, as far as I am concerned of, supercedes the 1,2 billion Catholic Church as WP:Primarytopic. So please do enlighten me. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I need to do some more reading for the general case, but still oppose starting with this template on a one-at-a-time basis on procedural grounds. The template name should match its lead article currently at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane, and that is named consistently with the vast majority of entries in both Category:Roman Catholic dioceses and prelatures established in the 19th century and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Australia. There needs to be a big mass move discussion (inviting editors interested in each relevant article/category) to change them all and keep consistency.

My deeper reading will start with an attempt to understand how we have two articles that start "The Latin Church, commonly called Roman Catholic Church,..." and "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,..." but appear to be describing differnet scopes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose use the name that the diocese calls itself, which here is Roman Catholic. [1] TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.