OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 16:24, December 22, 2004 by ASDamick (talk | contribs) (Non-Chalcedonian, Roman Catholic, and other Churches)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the OrthodoxWiki Style Guide. Refer to it when writing new articles. It is currently tentative and therefore still under development.

Churches

Autocephalous and Autonomous Churches

Refer to autocephalous and autonomous churches by the form when creating new articles and links: Church of Place. Referring with the adjectival form of the place (e.g., Smogarian Orthodox Church) is not only essentially incorrect but furthers the ethnic stereotyping of the Church. Thus, instead of Smogarian Orthodox Church, you would use Church of Smogaria.

The only current exception to this rule is the Orthodox Church in America, whose autocephaly is still in debate. To call it the Church of America would be to lend it a status not currently agreed upon.

Non-Chalcedonian, Roman Catholic, and other Churches

Many Non-Chalcedonian and Roman Catholic churches have parallel sees to those among Chalcedonian Orthodox, so distinction needs to be made. Refer to these parallel sees with this convention: Church of Place (Common Identifier). So, the Coptic church centered in Egypt would be Church of Alexandria (Coptic), or the Syrian Catholic Church would be the Church of Antioch (Catholic).

In other places, there are no parallel sees, so you would simply use the Church of Place convention, e.g., the Church of Armenia.

Dioceses, Archdioceses, Metropolises, etc.

Articles on component parts of autocephalous and autonomous churches should be named by their official self-naming convention. Examples: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia.

Categories

All articles on church bodies should be included in Category:Jurisdictions.

Bishops

Basic Style

When creating articles about bishops, name the article with the following style: Firstname I (Surname) of See, so if there is a bishop named Moses Jones who is the fifth bishop named Moses of the Patriarchate of Springfield, the name of the article would be: Moses V (Jones) of Springfield. In cases where no surname is known, it is of course omitted, which will especially be the case with ancient bishops, e.g., John I of Antioch.

Additionally, most sees will not usually have need of the ordinal (the I, II, III, etc.), so if the bishop is of a more minor see (as most are), the ordinal would be omitted, e.g., Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh. It's typically used only to refer to the primate of an autocephalous church, e.g., Alexei II (Ridiger) of Moscow.

Sainted bishops

Exceptions would be saints who are generally known by other names. For instance, instead of having an article named John I (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, we simply have John Chrysostom. Or instead of Cyril I of Alexandria, we have Cyril of Alexandria. Some ambiguity will exist for recently glorified bishops, e.g., Raphael of Brooklyn rather than Raphael (Hawaweeny) of Brooklyn, because the former is currently the more commonly used form.

English names

Additionally, use the most commonly used English form of the name of the bishop. So, instead of Vartholomaios I (Archontonis) of Constantinople, use Bartholomew I (Archontonis) of Constantinople. Some ambiguity will of course exist here, especially with names that are not commonly used in English-speaking countries.

Categories

Also be sure to include the bishop in Category:Bishops, and if he is the bishop of an important see, include him in the category of that see's bishops, e.g., Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople.

Other notes

The reason I would argue against naming articles with the bishops' first name in ALL CAPS is that such a usage is not common when referring to saints, and it is not a universal custom, anyhow. Certainly, within the text of an article a writer may choose to use ALL CAPS for bishops' names, but when creating articles or linking to existing or potential articles, the above convention should be followed.

A potential problem with this naming style is that a bishop may be transferred to another see, thus requiring the moving of the article to incorporate the new name. This wouldn't happen often, however, and having the move might well be helpful if searchers are looking for the bishop under his old title.

Comments?