Talk:Vatican

How to disambiguate see below

Among all the articles that link to this disambiguation page, I think:

• Those articles that refer to the office of the pope should direct to Holy See (probably those are most of the links to this disambiguation page). E.g., "The Vatican has issued a statement...".

• Those that refer to a geographic location or to the facilities there should probably direct to Vatican City. E.g., "Mr. Smith visited the Vatican and met with the pope." or "The famous statue is in the Vatican museums.

• Perhaps some geographic location references to Vatican Hill. E.g., "Pope Linus was probably buried at the Vatican." -- Michael Hardy 22:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I'd add that most references to ethical positions and the like should point to Roman Catholic Church e.g. The Vatican's opposition to contraception... and so I've added it as a See also reference ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What about Roman Curia, I was trying to determine what the diffrence would be in linking there in place of Holy See, and could find none especially since the Holy See article refrences Roman Curia at the top. Though if this is the case what is the justification for having Roman Curia listed here? Also, on the same grounds that Roman Catholic Church is included might some refrences also refer to the Pope himself? Or is that not a common usage? I am incluned to remove Roman Curia from the list if there is not actually any ambiguity between it and the term Vatican. Dalf | Talk 21:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I decided to be bold and remove Roman Curia, though I will not be offended if someon revertes it (though I would like them to modify what I am adding below explainning how to disambiguate the term here). Dalf | Talk 21:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply I'm reverting it back Dalf! I've been disambiguating Vatican for most of my last 400 edits and I can confirm it is useful. Consider The Vatican confirmed the pope should be out of hospital..., or the Vatican's Congregation for the...[insert favourite here] or indeed any reference in which it means officials (people) as distinct from the place or the pope. ~ VELEDAN ^{TALK • CTRB}' 22:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Actually after I did a page or two I almost reverted itmyself but decided to stop working on it for a bit and wait and see. I will add you comments about when to use Roman Curia below as I think the definition list format is an easier way for someone new to get strted. How about instances of "the Vatican condemned"? I changed at least one link from Roman Curia to Holy See for such a use. Dalf | Talk 22:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply I agree with you fully on that one - an official statement or condemnation that important will always come from the Holy See. The Holy See = Curia + Pope :-) . The only time you'd say that an important announcement had come from the Roman Curia would be if for some weird reason, the Curia had issued the statement without the authority of the pope. At least, that's how I understand it ! But minor decisions (the Vatican has postponed the beatification of [...] a week to allow time for the pope to conclude his visit...) can be safely ascribed to the Curia ~ Veledan 22:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalf"

How to disambiguate

So from the discussion above (and largly cut and paste), when trying to change links comming to this page the following guidlines should be useful. Try and use:

Holy See

For articles that refer to the office of the pope (these are probably most of the links to this disambiguation page). E.g., "The Vatican has issued a statement...".. Also for all diplomatic references: ambassadors are Ambassadors to the Holy See, never to the Vatican City.

Roman Curia

For articles using the term to mean officials or officialdom as distinct from the place or the pope. e.g., "The Vatican confirmed the pope should be out of hospital...", or "the Vatican's Congregation for the...[insert favourite here]", or "Cardinal X worked his way up through the ranks of the Vatican"

Vatican City

For articles that refer to a geographic location or to the facilities located there. E.g., "Mr. Smith visited the Vatican and met with the pope." or "The famous statue is in the Vatican museums."

I disagree. The Vatican City didn't come into existence until 1929, but the sentences above could just as well have been written about events before that date. The first should link to Apostolic Palace and the second simply to Vatican Museums. Vatican City should only be used for the specific territory ceded by Mussolini to the Holy See in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

For articles refering to ethical positions held by the church. E.g., "The Vatican's opposition to contraception...".

Also though not listed on the disambiguation page (and we should probbly not add it unless we can actualy find an instance of a link comming here for this term). Keep a look out for:

Vatican Hill

A location within Vatican City. E.g., "Pope Linus was probably buried at the Vatican." Though in these cases, if context allows, you might consider changing the refrence to "Vatican Hill in the Vatican City".

Apostolic Palace

Refers to the actual residence of the Pope. Papal Palace and Palace of the Vatican both re-direct here.

And other actual locations in Vatican City, I have run into at least one link that I sent to Saint Peter's Square.

---

Ok, first article I look at has a case that does not seem to fit with the above. Action of 22 August 1696 refers to the Vatican as a (historical) political entity with a milatary. I suppose linking to Roman Catholic Church might be the corrct answer here but I am really not sure. How should we handle such historical refrences? Dalf | Talk 22:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply Remember the Vatican was not a politcal entity at all before the late 19th Century. The political entity with the army would be the Papal States - one of those where the link needs to be changed. But I haven't changed it because of the ambiguity - it might mean the Holy See, and the army might be Venice's alone. I don;t know enough about the battle to dab it, hence the message on the talk page. ~ VELEDAN ^{TALK • CTRB}' 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican, in the sense of the Holy See, existed as a political entity well before the late 19th century - see Holy See#Status in international law and Holy See#Diplomacy. This was the case even when it didn't control any territory between the dissolution of the Papal States in 1870 and the creation of the Vatican City in 1929. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:: Reply You came across that one first because I left it! I didn't know what to do either - see my comments on the talk page. ~ VELEDAN ^{TALK • CTRB}' 22:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply replaced in proper place

Vatican conspiracy theories

and other refs to an occult Vatican are the things I find hardest to disambiguate. Just who is Jack Chick accusing of plotting to destroy God's kingdom? Is it the Holy See or the Roman Curia or the Vatican City who send immortal action heroes out in numerous (I find) comic books? Who is it that plots so many murders, and just which Vatican will be excommunicating star systems from essentially political protection in the year 3000? ~ Veledan 23:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I begin to wonder if a new article, Vatican (Urban Legend) isn't called for, and that we should be dab'ing all those kind of things to it.. but I don't feel competent to write it, and if I did I'd have to go back and undo hundreds of disambiguations, and even then the writers of the articles that refer to it would change the link: they'd insist that they meant the real Vatican, not that Urban Legend article, that's only for stories that aren't true... etc ~ Veledan 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move this question to the main dab talk page. I'm interested in getting a wider opinion on it. ~ Veledan 23:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll comment over on the dab talk page too. I was thinking something like this, or rather there have been a few articles that when I read them I really felt like the disambiguation page was incomplete. Like there were two or possibly three articles that really should be options here that are not listed. Largely I think references that are to the Roman Catholic Church but not in terms of its modern incarnation. There are a lot of historical references to the Vatican that really feel like they mean Roman Catholic Church, but in a sort of quasi political context that I am not sure really mean what is in the current article. Most of your urban legend stuff intersects with this too. There are also instances (and not just for Vatican) where I think that the reference itself is so ambiguous that linking to the dab page would not be inappropriate (or perhaps removing the link all together). Dalf | Talk 07:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Many of the historical references are simply inaccurate to use the word Vatican - "the Ghibelline army marched on the [[Vatican]]" doesn't need dab'ing, it needs changing to "[[Papal States]]" unless the army really were nearby and heading for the hill. Same goes for any reference to Vatican as administrative centre of the Church in the centuries before it was so. The Rat-line references are tougher though, and you'll come across them again and again in the bio-stub of every named Nazi involved. I've tried looking into it but no one is really agreed. No matter which way you disambiguate it, you are tacitly pointing the blame at a particular organisation with no evidence! And I doubt the original author had any clear idea either. Occasionally I've resorted to slight paraphrase. Remember the article Vatican City does cover all aspects, including the Holy See and the Curia, so it can sometimes serve where the alternative is removing the link or leaving a link to the dab page: instead of "Nazi X is rumoured to have been assisted by the [[Vatican]]", a more general "Nazi X is rumoured to have been assisted by [[Vatican City|Vatican]] officials" might well cover the author's intention ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 12:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think that since these refrneces ARE so ambigious that the best idea might be to link them to the disambiguation page. In terms of what the articles in question mean, I think this is likley to be the most help to anyone clicking on the link. Since we (after looking at toons of refrences to "The Vatican" are not rally sure, and more importantly trying to imagine a reader who sees the article in question and feels the need to click on the link, where woudl that person expect to end up? I think formost in their mind would either be "what is the Vatican" or "What do they mean by Vatican". Both of those questions are best sent to the DAB page IMHO. What do you think about going back through and repointing these to the DAB page? Dalf | Talk 21:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Specific DAB issues

I have left the link on The Father, The Son, and The Holy Guest Star an episode of the Simpsons where the Vatican is mentioned in a quote. I thought about de-wikifying it, but I suppose if someone is trying to get the (rather lame) joke the link might be useful, and further the disambiguation page is probbly the most useful page for that purpose so I just left it. Dalf | Talk 09:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I created (what I believe is the traditional) Vatican (disambiguation) for links where you want the dab page to come up - it's a redirect to Vatican, but it isn't a dab page itself, so it means the page won't show up on the list of (problem) pages with links to dabs. In the case mentioned above, strictly speaking I'd say the context requires Roman Catholic Church, but I'd agree with you that anyone browsing the Vatican from such a barely relevant link would probably be better off starting at the dab page. I've linked it to the (dab) page. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 11:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That is a good idea, there was an example that could have uses this linked to Prism that I was working on the other day. I think I will go and fix that today. Dalf | Talk 19:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Pruning down

This article has ballooned a bit since Dalf & I were working on it eight months ago. I've removed several entries which were not irrelevant but which don't actually disambiguate Vatican, and cut out all info not necessary for disambiguation. Per MoS:DP, Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article.. Extra info and links to related articles that would never be linked simply as [[Vatican]] in error are distracting. I've re-formatted the existing listings per the MoS too ~ Veledan • Talk 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to disambiguate Vatican again. I'll replace any of the deleted links if I do find any articles linking to this page in error while meaning to link to them ~ Veledan • Talk 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation clean-up from Novemeber 2006 Database Dump

Just wanted to note that I have just "disambiguated" Vatican again. I have, with the exception of adding the Apostolic Palace (as I found quite a few links where this adition could be relavant), left the actuall disambiguation page alone. I found the above (How to disambiguate) guide quite useful. Ithinkhelikesit 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where to redirect

I disagree with the redirection of this page to Vatican City. In the majority of cases where people refer to the Vatican they mean the sovereign authority, the Holy See, rather than the physical territory of the Vatican City established in 1929, so this page should be redirected either to Holy See or to Vatican (disambiguation). Does anyone care to comment before I decide in which direction my WP:BOLD edit should go? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I changed the redirect back to the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...and besides, an article may state that in the year 1800, the Vatican did thus-and-so, and that's long before the establishment in 1929 of the present state of Vatican City. At that time the geographically extensive Papal States covered a good-sized chunk of Italy, and that big territory was certainly not "the Vatican". Michael Hardy (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Vatican Hill is the original usage

Should we include something in this page to the effect that Vatican Hill is the usage from which all the others are derived? There may be older usages, e.g. an Etruscan town called Vaticum, but apparently all of the other usages current in the present day and listed on this page are derived from the name of the Hill, which is the oldest usage listed on this page. I can imagine a reader unaware of the history thinking it's called the Vatican Hill because it's where the Vatican is located. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More on disambiguation

I have finished disambiguating the current links to this page, but I'm sure that within days we'll get more articles linked here. I haven't been keeping a count, but I only remember disambiguating one of the hundred or two links that I dealt with to Vatican City, so I would like to stress again that anyone doing such work in the future should understand that the Vatican City is simply a few hectares of real estate in Rome that came under the control of the Holy See in 1929. Any reference from before this date is certainly not to Vatican City, and, for references after that date, if it would make sense in the absence the Lateran Treaty, then it is not talking about the Vatican City. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Vatican City, the territory" - the article it refers to says plainly: "sovereign city-state" - ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.137.129 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)