Disputatio:Gregorius Turonensis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

(Sanctus) Gregorius[fontem recensere]

Have we got a policy on this? I think that Sanctus Gregorius Turonensis as main page is a POV. I think that his deeds as bishop and governor of Tours are mroe important than his later santification. Of course, redoing my edit is very easy if anyone complaints.--Xaverius 14:19, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. In fact I think I argued for this already, at Disputatio Usoris:LionhardusCiampa#Some new saints. I didn't persist: it wasn't worth it at the time!
I don't think we have a policy. My suggestion would be that "Sanctus" should only be used when it's needed for discretiva purposes (often, I guess, when the saint has only one name).
But this wasn't the proper way to do the move, because the history currently remains at "Sanctus Gregorius Turonensis". The proper way is to delete the redirect page (which probably has little or no history) and then to move the page, not to copy-and-paste it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:07, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that how we already tend to do kings, dukes, etc.? I see that we have an article that starts "Ludovicus IX Franciae," where I'd have said "Ludovicus IX, rex Franciae, sanctus" or "Ludovicus IX, Rex Franciae, Sanctus" but certainly not "Rex Sanctus Ludovicus IX Franciae." So applying that formula to saints, we'd have something like "Gregorius Turonensis, sanctus" or "Gregorius Turonensis, Sanctus," not "Sanctus Gregorius Turonensis." Oh, and for knights, we already have the pattern of "Godfridus Kneller, Eques" = 'Sir G. K.', where the eques obligatorily follows the name; according to the style we've inherited from the Renaissance & after, "Eques Godfridus Kneller" would be Just Plain Wrong. IacobusAmor 17:13, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Additionally, as I said at Disputatio Usoris:LionhardusCiampa#Some new saints, in the case of this saint (and no doubt many others) his sanctity was by no means the most notable thing about him during his lifetime. Logically, their saintedness is part of their post-mortem fortuna -- the last section of a Vicipaedia article, and maybe the last sentence of the introduction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has answered the question of when they made him a saint. I moved his saintliness downwards, therefore, and have said for the time being that it happened in a later century. There must be a record, though. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:49, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]