Jump to content

Talk:Mass of Paul VI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ozone742 (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 24 September 2022 (→‎De facto rename). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCatholicism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconMass of Paul VI is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

De facto rename

A de facto renaming of this article is taking place. @Bealtainemí: has created a redirect named Post-Vatican II Mass (fair enough) and has begun to replace links pointing to Mass of Paul VI with the new redirect. I am not cool with this. We agreed that the current name of this article is the most appropriate one. Therefore there is no basis to arbitrarily begin renaming it per the failed proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's poor behavior, @Bealtainemí:. Cut it out. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that Elizium23 and PluniaZ presumed that my edits were a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the negative decision against moving to "Vatican II Mass" (not "Post-Vatican II Mass", which was not proposed nor even discussed, nor was it a positive decision that "Mass of Paul VI" was the most appropriate term possible). For more, see Talk:Post-Vatican II Mass. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bealtainemí: could you explain this and this? Veverve (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Dear Veverve, since you object, I'll revert. I thought the more common name is the more appropriate. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Apologies since I'm not sure how this works, but has the name "Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite" been considered as a title for thr page? It's a much more common name, and it's technically more accurate.[reply]

What it is

Shouldn't the article state first what it is in itself and only later give additional information such as its status as the ordinary/normal form of the eucharistic liturgy? Even if it had only been granted parity with the 1972 form it would still be what it is, it would be essentially the same thing. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen in "post-Vatican II"

I have twice undone a replacement of the hyphen in "post-Vatican II" with an n-dash. Am I wrong? See 1, 2. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reconcile this with MOS:PREFIXDASH? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, and so I must undo. I wonder where did whoever enunciated this rule for Wikipedia get that idea. I haven't found it elsewhere. Perhaps you can point me to a reliable source that enunciates it. I have, so far, only found sources that contradict the Wikipedia rule. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the MOS is the problem here, wouldn't the more appropriate venue for this be WT:MOS? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if someone wants to pursue the question. However, all that I was under strict obligation to do in Wikipedia was to observe the existing Wikipedia rule, even if mistaken. I may yet suggest an amendment, but not if I find that people like you judge the existing rule to be correct. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Bealtainemí: As for a reliable source that provides for this in non-Wikipedia contexts, though, I would point to The Chicago Manual of Style, which provides the following:[1]

En dashes with compound adjectives. The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds (see 7.82). Whereas a hyphen joins exactly two words, the en dash is intended to signal a link across more than two. Because this editorial nicety will almost certainly go unnoticed by the majority of readers, it should be used sparingly, when a more elegant solution is unavailable. As the first two examples illustrate, the distinction is most helpful with proper compounds, whose limits are made clear within the larger context by capitalization. The relationship in the third example depends to some small degree on an en dash that many readers will perceive as a hyphen connecting music and influenced. The relationships in the fourth example are less awkwardly conveyed with a comma.

the post–World War II years
Chuck Berry–style lyrics
country music–influenced lyrics (or lyrics influenced by country music)
a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (or, better, a quasi-public, quasi-judicial body)

207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Manual (unlike some others) allows use of n-dash instead of hyphen, giving examples more complex than "post-Vatican II": combination phrases placed before the sign is reached and a three-element combination after the hyphen or n-dash sign. Wikipedia makes n-dash obligatory.
On Wikipedia, you were right to replace the hyphen with an n-dash. On Wikipedia, I was wrong to restore the hyphen. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2017. pp. 396–397. doi:10.7208/cmos17. ISBN 978-0-226-28705-8.

The most commonly-used liturgy

It seems that the liturgy used in 95% of parishes, religious communities, missions, etc. of the Catholic Church is without a doubt the most commonly-used, and it bears mention in the article so that people who are reading who haven't the faintest clue what different Masses look like, can differentiate the most commonly-used liturgy from less commonly-used ones. Elizium23 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Beginnings of the modern revision, 1948–1962"

@Jahaza: when do you expect to have finished your research on this section? What is unsourced should be removed, as per WP:V. Veverve (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just up to me to do the work. You need to contribute to the article not just remove stuff.--Jahaza (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). The banner you added also says: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Either you source, or I remove. There is none of those information I could find. Veverve (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the collaborative process through which the encyclopedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, I added a source and you removed the sourced material. Additionally, you wrote falsely in your edit summary that I stated that I did not intend to add any additional sources when I said no such thing. --Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the collaborative process through which the encyclopedia is supposed to work: it definetely is. Removing unsourced claims is the best way to ensure WP:V and to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS. You must have a very good reason to oppose the removal of unsourced material.
  • I added a source and you removed the sourced material: my bad, the source you added does source more than one line
  • you wrote falsely in your edit summary that I stated that I did not intend to add any additional sources; yet you stated: It's not just up to me to do the work.
Veverve (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked your source again: only the line I had left was to be found in said source. The other information (prayer to the HR Emperor, etc.) is nowhere to be found in this source. Veverve (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I "yet" stated a completely different thing is not proof that I said something I didn't say. --Jahaza (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: much of what you're saying isn't there is in fact there. This is false. There is no mention of any of those information apart from the last one. Otherwise, please tell me where those information are in the source. Veverve (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to say where in the source the information in the list can be found, and to add sources for the other information in this section? Or are you simply WP:STONEWALLING? Veverve (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_of_Paul_VI&oldid=1112141280"