Template talk:Vatican City sidebar

Requested move 28 March 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — KB3035583^talk 00:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Template:Vatican City sidebar → Template:Holy See sidebar – Would this be more suitable? Considering that the Vatican City is part of the history of the Holy See, but not the other way around. There seems to be no Holy See sidebar currently, just a "footer": Template:Holy See. PPEMES (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has been explained on numerous occasions by quite a few editors: Vatican City is a country, the Holy See is a religious entity. The articles on the templates, index, outline, and other failed move attempts refer to the country and its holdings and government. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure? Did you check the article Holy See? Does it really reflect your assertion? PPEMES (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A hatnote on the Holy See article reads "Not to be confused with Vatican City". The governmental outreach of the Holy See are on behalf of the Catholic Church, which may overlap somewhat with the country but do not encompass the topic 'Vatican City'. The Wikipedia portal for this topic is named Portal:Vatican City. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What about diplomacy, membership in international organisations of states, history predating 20th century, etc.? Was this also the Vatican City? So does the Holy See solely pertain to religious jurisdiction? Does portal names determine article and templates names or the other way around? On a side note, I saw a comment there advocating actually giving priority to the name of the Holy See for that portal. PPEMES (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since nobody else has chimed in yet, allow me to explain my reasoning further. I honor much of what the Catholic Church has done, and the personages it focuses upon, and have added a good amount to related pages. And of course the Holy See has its history, and maintains its vast importance upon the Catholic Church and Vatican City and their place in international relations. Yet Vatican City is the country, the independent-state. Wikipedia has a large collection of country templates, and they in turn provide a map to Wikipedia's collection on the individual subject. Given that the country's name is Vatican City, there shouldn't be any argument about having templates, an outline, and an index named after the country (and most of the articles listed within all of these contain the name 'Vatican City'). Separate templates, an index, and an outline can be named 'Holy See' or 'Holy See topics' etc. Should a Holy See side-template, in your opinion, include every item that is now included in the Vatican City template? Is artwork considered part of the Vatican's holdings or does the Holy See own it? I really don't know, so am asking. But my only reasoning as a Wikipedian comes from a viewpoint that a template about a country should contain that countries name in its title. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm rather uncertain too. It just seems that if you dig into it deeper, the Vatican City seems not to be the catch-all entity for the pertaining sovereignty aspects as might seem the case. Anyway, thanks for your arguments. I'll settle to your reasoning for the time being, until more voices and arguments are heard. PPEMES (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose — Vatican City is a well-known name for the place. However, according to the Google Ngram Viewer, "Holy See" is more commonly used, though it's declining in usage, while "Vatican City" is climbing. Probably, though, the statement in one of the above comments, "Vatican City is a country, the Holy See is a religious entity" would explain the high usage of the second term. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.