Talk: Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Title of this page should be "Cardinal Thomas Wolsey" not "Thomas Cardinal Wolsey" Cardinal is the title that he aquired after having had it bestowed on him by the Pope in 1518. His actual name is "Thomas Wolsey"
See Talk:Thomas Wosley (page deleted and merged with this page. A talk page to a redirect article page should not exist.)
The spelling is still incorrect for the second entry s/b: Thomas Wolsey and for some reason I cannot edit it.
The text below comes from a talk page called Thomas Wolsey. In seems that it may not have been moved when the main page was moved, or may have been specially created. In either case it should not have existed. I have cut and pasted the text here and deleted the page.
Unfortunately I have found a page entitled Thomas Cardinal Wolsey. My source indicates Cardinal Wolsey--Thomas Wolsey. It seems to me that Cardinal is his title and his name is Thomas Wolsey.
Also there are discrepancies in dates, etc. I have left the text in its entirety (with a misspelling in the title Wosley should be Wolsey. See my page: Thomas Wosley and the original page: Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Anyone care to confer on this item?
- I think it's supposed to be "Thomas, Cardinal Wolsey"....the Catholic Encyclopedia turns up Thomas Cardinal Wolsey without the comma, which leads me to suspect it's one of those archaic turn-of-the-century things that Britannica would have used. I've always heard his name as Thomas Wolsey. As for the dates, there are always discrepancies (in birthdates especially) for non-royal people at that time...if you put "c. 1531" or whatever, that should solve the problem :) Adam Bishop 21:28 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The naming convention on wiki for cardinals for practical reasons has put all cardinals in as [first name Cardinal surname]. That is the agreed format, which was created because it is unworkable to refer to cardinals simply by name. Among the reasons
- Some cardinals has personal names that are different to their cardinal names; (eg. Cardinal Richelieu)
- Some mediæval cardinal's first names are unknown. Using the word Cardinal still allows us to create references to them. WIthout it, all we would have is the surname.
- Even if we know the first name of a mediæval cardinal, many historical cardinals are known only as Cardinal X. Using first name surname would produce references that few would recognise.
- Cardinal names raise some of the problems that also arise with royalty. As with royalty, the only workable solution is to use their title in the article name, not to simply use a personal name.
- This format follows the naming convention for cardinals within the Roman Catholic Church. While post Vatican II many cardinals are referred to as Cardinal name surname, as the vast majority of cardinals predate the 1960s, it makes sense to use a format that matches what most were known as, rather than renaming a millenium of cardinals into forms they were never known as simply to match modern cardinals. (eg. the Irish cardinal in the 1960s was known as William Cardinal Conway. His successor was known generally as Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich. Putting in Conway as Cardinal Wiliam Conway would involve reordering his name in a form he was never known by. And Ó Fiaich was officially named as Tómas Cardinal Ó Fiaich, even if that form was not used in everyday language.
- Using [[first name Cardinal surname]] keeps Cardinal surname together and so makes it easier to recognise. For example the page on John Cardinal O'Connor of New York keeps the words Cardinal O'Connor together, which is what most people would know him as.
The details are on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) The issue of how to prefer to other clergy is still being debated. In Roman Catholicism and in some other faiths, the higher one rose in the hierarchy, the less likely one was to be known without reference to title. So while it may indeed be practical to refer to lower clergy by personal names alone, cardinals, patriarchs and popes tended to be exclusively known via their title, often indeed changing their names on assuming office.
BTW I have deleted the talk page for Thomas Wosley (sic). There should not be separate talk pages for redirect pages. All debates should take place on the talk page attached to the main page. So please do not recreate the Thomas Wolsey page. Any debate should be held here. FearÉIREANN 08:36 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The procedure for pages on cardinals is to insert the "Cardinal" title between Given and Family names. If it is not at Thomas Cardinal Wolsey it should be at Thomas Wolsey. The current location is completely inappropriate. john k 05:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
moved page twice
I saw the page and said "Shit this page should be Cardinal Thomas Wolsey not Thomas Cardinal Wolsey". Turns out it is right all along. See the section from: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).
- For cardinals, use "{name if known} Cardinal {surname}]]". For example, Giuseppe Cardinal Siri not Cardinal Guiseppe Siri This format avoids problems associated with historical cardinals whose first names have long since been forgotten; they can be entered as "Cardinal {surname}" and adapted later if and when their first name has been unearthed. It also has the benefit of keeping the cardinal surname together for search purposes. This is the format officially used by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to its cardinals. Since Vatican II, an alternative version, placing the word 'Cardinal' before the first name has grown in popularity. However as the great majority of cardinals predate this change, that format would require a complete change in all cardinal titles before 1965 and is impractical.
That solves alot of my problems. --</b>metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
