Talk:PostVatican II Mass

This article should be redirected to Mass of Paul VI. It was created as an attempt to circumvent the discussion on that article's talk page regarding a proposed rename. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It already is a redirect to Mass of Paul VI.

"Post-Vatican II Mass" is a redirect to "Mass of Paul VI", just as are "Pauline Mass", "Post-Tridentine Mass", "Novus Ordo Mass", "New Mass", "Novus Ordo", "Ordinary Form", "Ordinary form", "Novus Ordo Missae", "Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite", "Ordinary form of the Roman Rite", "Ordinary forms".

I'm sorry you think this particular redirect was a bad-faith attempt to circumvent a discussion on Talk:Mass of Paul VI. That page discussed the possible move of "Mass of Paul VI" to "Vatican II Mass", not to "Post-Vatican II Mass".

The name "Post-Vatican II Mass" has come into use, as far as I can tell, only since about when that form of the Roman-Rite Mass ceased in 2002 to be exclusively Paul VI's with the publication of John Paul II's version.

It is the name used by the New York Times, 26 May 2002, the National Catholic Register, 19 October 2006, Stephen E. Cavanaugh, Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments (Ignatius Press, 1 January 2011), the Catholic Herald, 30 May 2011, the Archdiocese of Baltimore's Catholic Review, 19 January 2012, John L. Allen Jr., The Catholic Church: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 3 March 2014), p. 114, Commonweal Magazine. 11 March 2015, Massimo Faggioli, Andrea Vicini (editors), 12 international scholars as authors, The Legacy of Vatican II (Paulist Press, 5 May 2015), pp. xv, 11, 15, 22, 25, 43, 73, 114, 122, 128, 163, 232, 418, 837, Paul Turner, Whose Mass Is It?: Why People Care So Much about the Catholic Liturgy (Liturgical Press, 11 December 2015), p. 3, Crux, 11 July 2016, the Times of Malta, 16 July 2016. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate place to make this argument is Talk:Mass of Paul VI. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate your not denying the above facts, I regret your maintaining, even on reflection, your condemnation, "That's poor behavior. Cut it out." Bealtainemí (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Not printworthy?

Would User:PluniaZ please indicate why s/he judges, against the opinion of others, that a term that, as shown above, is in wide use in print (books and newspapers) is not "printworthy"?

While "printworthy" has in WP a more specific meaning, simple reverting is not the way to advance WP. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of this title has already been discussed

The use of this title has already been discussed and rejected by the community here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_of_Paul_VI#Requested_move_27_June_2019

Why are certain editors attempting to circumvent the community consensus by continuing to edit this page? --PluniaZ (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The link you give is to a proposal:

1) to move the article "Mass of Paul VI" to

2) "Vatican II Mass", the rejection of which I accepted due to a lack of reliable sources for its use.

What you are objecting to here is instead:

1) a redirect to the unmoved article "Mass of Paul VI" from

2) "Post-Vatican II Mass", a name for whose use there are abundant reliable sources.

Can you not see the difference, which has already been pointed out to you?

You can't deny that the use of this name is widespread, whether you wish to discuss it or instead to close your eyes to its existence.

Please do not accuse your fellow-Wikipedians of bad faith. WP:GF. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ If you read the guideline I linked in my last edit summary instead of just blindly reverting me, you'd realize that it is standard practice to categorize redirects as I did here and have done for hundreds of redirect. Please stop accusing others of circumventing consensus when you keep circumventing WP:RCAT Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)