User talk:Vicedomino

Welcome!

Great work on the Innocenzo Cybo article so far! I hope you'll stay around and keep contributing. May I suggest that you nominated the Cybo article to appear in the "Did You Know?" column on the main page T:TDYK? Savidan 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Work!

Vicedomino, I just assessed your work on the Alessandro Farnese page per your request, and I am impressed by the work you put in. If you'd like to take the article further, I suggest putting it up for a WP:Peer Review and then possibly taking it in for a WP:Good Article. Well done! 1bandsaw (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Simone Paltanieri) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Simone Paltanieri, Vicedomino!

Wikipedia editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I enjoyed the new article about Simone Paltanieri. Well-done!

To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bentivenga da Bentivengi

Hi. I've noticed that you've changed the date of death of Cardinal Bentivenga on the basis of the alleged participation in the General Chapter of Friars Minor in June 1289. However, as far as I see, this account goes back to 16th century Mariano da Firenze, the author not particularly reliable and - in any case - not a contemporary one. At least Wadding cites only Mariano. However, please note that there exists, on the contrary, a contemporary source that confirm Bentivenga was already dead by 29 April 1289. On that day Pope Nicholas IV appointed Berardo da Todi OFM as administrator of the vacated see of Albano, see: Ernest Langlois, Les Registres de Nicholas IV, p. 977 no. 7225; cf. Eubel, p. 35 n. 3 (Albano). I think that the account of Mariano is simply inaccurate and should be dismissed. At least, it seems not sufficient to put in question the date of death given by Ughelli. Cordially CarlosPn (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on your concern for overtagging on my talk page. I am not convinced that it is a significant problem. I am hoping it prods the area towards further coverage.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Robert Lansing (actor)

Thank you for the quick review of the article on Robert Lansing. I think you also need to delete my user sig from the assessment list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. Thanks again! NotaBene ^Talk 18:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caravaggio as Baroque

I hope this is not a big disagreement. I altered your entry for Sant'Agostino in Rome. However, SJ Freedberg's Pelican History of Art review of "Renaissance art" ends at 1600, while Wittkower classic survey of Italian Baroque art and architecture starts in 1600. The latter covers Caravaggio, the former does not. This alone should qualify for this assertion. If you wish I can find other standard opinions, as I said on the talk page, classification can be arbitrary, but there is a general sense that painting styles changed with Caravaggio and the Caracci, and that this was part of a new trend, even though each of these artists would not have necessarily seen themselves as revolutionary or a break with the past. Rococo1700 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of bishops and the use of Catholic-hierarchy.org

• Thanks for your addition of useful sources. As far as the notability of bishops, the guidelines state that nearly all Catholic bishops are notable. Please refer to the notability guidelines WP:CCWMOS on WikiProject Catholicism.
• I brought up Catholic-hierarchy.org to the reliable sources noticeboard. (see [Reliable Sources Noticeboard: catholic-hierarchy.org] My argument was that even though it is self-published WP:SPS, the fact that it is used as a resource by numerous dioceses, news organizations, as a reference in academic works, and Vatican watchers, allows it to be used as "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is widely used on Wikipedia in other languages. The consensus was that it is a reliable source. Its author, User:Dcheney, is available for any questions you might have. Note also that Catholic-hierarchy shows the actual source at the very bottom of each bishop's page (not on the diocese page). WikiProject Catholicism has even developed a template Catholic-hierarchy.org.
• Anyhow, my approach has been to get the bishop's pages developed (there are several other people working on earlier bishops) and then develop a more detailed history later; that is why I list each entry as a stub.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your edits to pages under the protection of WikiProject Catholicism, especially the Diocese of Brescia. Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 03:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Porto e S. Rufina

Hi. The source for the real date of Estouteville's appointment is H. Denifle-E. Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, IV, Paris 1898, pp. 713-734. Please note, that Piccolomini/Pius II in his commentarii explicitly says that in the conclave of 1458 d'Estouteville was still a cardinal priest[1]. Also the bull of appointment of Rodrigo Borgia as cardinal, dated 20 February 1456, was signed by him as cardinal priest of Ss. Silvestro e Martino (the bull was printed by Ludwig von Pastor in the volume about Callixtus III of his History of the Popes) CarlosPn (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For d'Estouteville birth date, again the source is Denifle/Chatelain, p. XXII-XXIII. It is based on document dated November 1428, where Guillaume d'Estouteville is mentioned as being 16 years old. Denifle/Chatelain accepted this with some reservation, but surely the document of 1428 is much better source than 17th-century inscription with at least one serious error. Besides, it's much easier to imagine that one takes as 80-years old man someone who is actually only 70, than one takes 25-years old man as 16-years old boy. CarlosPn (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Porto-Santa Rufina? Actually, in 15th century there are several instances of longer vacancies in the suburbicarian sees. When Pope Martin V died in 1431, as many as four were vacant, including Ostia e Velletri with no incumbent for almost five years! Regarding Eubel, many of his dates, esp. in the first two volumes, are clearly wrong, but are still repeated on the basis of his authority. I've observed that many such dates were estabslished by him on the simple presumption: if cardinal A died in April 1396 and we know that cardinal B was his successor in his title, then the promotion of B to that title should be dated to April/May 1396 (immediately after the death or promotion of the former). But this is often incorrect and can be easy verified with sources which were available already when Eubel compiled his Hierarchia Catholica. Here is the list of examples of such errors, by no means exhaustive:

• Angelo d'Anna de Sommariva is listed by Eubel as having been promoted from deacon of S. Lucia to priest of S. Pudenziana in May 1396, shortly after the death previous cardinal of S. Pudenziana, Bartolomeo Mezzavacca. But actually Angelo d'Anna in 1399 was still cardinal deacon of S. Lucia (Ann.Eccl., XXVII, p. 54). His place in the subscriptions of the electoral capitulation and in the oath in conclave of 1404 (published by Souchon, I, 280-284 and [2][3]) strongly suggests that his promotion took place after the second consistory of Boniface IX (27 Feb 1402), for he is precided by the cardinal priest Antonio Gaetani of S. Cecilia;
• Angelo Acciaioli, according to Eubel (apparently based on Gams) should have been promoted to the see of Ostia on 28 Aug 1397, shortly after the death of Philipp d'Alencon. But in the papal documents issued between 1399 and 1403 he is constantly referred to as priest of S. Lorenzo in Damaso (Ann.Eccl., XXVII, p. 51, 66, 101). He subscribed as such even in the papal conclave of October 1404 (Souchon, I, p. 280-284). Only by the coronation of Innocent VII in November 1404 he is listed as bishop of Ostia[4], which allows to put his promotion at the time immediately after the election of this Pope at the turn of Oct/Nov 1404, promotion surely made because there was no cardinal bishop at that time in Roman Obedience, esp. there was no bishop of Ostia to anoint the new Pope. Similarily, when the see of Ostia became vacant in 1294, the newly elected pope Celestine V filled the vacancy before being consecrated
• Jorge da Costa, according to Eubel, was translated from the title of Ss. Marcellino e Pietro to S. Maria in Trastevere in November 1484 (Eubel, II, p. 17). But he himself cited acts of the consistory of 20 Dec 1484, where da Costa is still listed with his former title, while the note about his translation indicates only that it took place sometime after the death of Stefano Nardini (22 Oct 1484).
• Giovanni Battista Zeno should have been promoted to cardinal priest of S. Anastasia as early as March 1470 (apparently only on the basis of episcopal appointment), although in the documentation of the conclave 1471 he was still listed among the cardinal deacon and the later documents which mention several cardinals apparently in the order of seniority, he was constantly mentioned after Giuliano della Rovere, promoted as cardinal priest in Dec 1471.
• Pierre de Foix was allegedly promoted from deacon od Ss. Cosma e Damiano to priest of S. Sisto in August 1485 (Eubel, II, 65-66), but this is contradicted by the document in the very same volume (p. 49 no. 530) as well as by the bull of Innocent VIII of 28 Mar 1489 in Codice diplomatico del sacro militare ordine Gerosolimitano oggi di Malta, p. 160-164;
• Eubel indicate that all cardinals created on 28 Sep 1500 received their title on 5 Oct 1500, and all created on 31 Mai 1503 received them on 12 Jun 1503, although Burchard (his source) himself remarks the only those presen received the titles on that dates and, moreover, some titles given to the cardinals created in these two consistories still had on that dates their incumbents, e.g. Tamas Bakocz could have received the title of Ss. Marcellino e Pietro no sooner than by the end on Nov 1500, when the news about the death of Cardinal Andre d'Espinay of Bordeaux had reached the Papal Curia.
• and many, many more...CarlosPn (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template usage

Note that according to Template:Incomplete#Usage, "when this template is added to a page, a discussion must simultaneously be initiated on its talk page". Srnec (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

I notice you are putting a lot of information on individual bishops in footnotes in the diocese articles. Bishops are basically notable by definition. You could create articles. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your revisions and corrections to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Messina-Lipari-Santa Lucia del Mela are clogging up my Watchlist with ceaseless quality. Thank you for correcting information that tends to be lost to the sands of time. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the review! GrammerCracker96 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Perpignan

Thank you for editing the Council of Perpignan-article! All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Pierre de Thury) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Pierre de Thury, Vicedomino!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Alex Zhavoronkov page

Dear Vicedomino, can you please take a look at the Alex Zhavoronkov page nominated for deletion? Can you please spend another minute looking at the publications - the author is the correspondent author on most. The call to delete the page was made by the editor, who is anti-blockchain following the publication of a research paper on blockchain technology.

Blockchain technology makes no difference to me. It's not a criterion for notability.

Hi!

I see that you are very active. Could you please help me with this? Thank you! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for your answer and work. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Isabella of Aragon

Hello, I would appreciate your opinion on Talk:Isabella of Aragon, Duchess of Milan. Thank you David (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boniface VIII

Please familiarize yourself with the policy around removing tags, which includes Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. The removal of the tag was perfectly valid, because while the lede is brief, it does offer passing mention to the main historical points of Boniface's papacy. If you believe the lede doesn't summarize the article enough, I'm not going to edit war to remove the tag, but saying the removal reason was inadequate is rubbish. It's also goofy to insist on restoring a two-year-old tag for lede expansion instead of just expanding it, but whatever. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese of Tortona

In response to your message on my talk page:

1. You have undone a number of entirely proper corrections and additions: you were wrong to do so, and should replace them. On your two specific points, for which you have reverted the whole of a much wider edit:
   1. In English, surely "dignities"/"dignitaries" are synonyms in the specific sense of cathedral chapter officials, and "dignitaries" is more easily understood, but I won't argue with you about it. If you can source it, however, you could usefully add the term to the article on Cathedral chapters, where it is not to be found as yet.
   2. Your assertion about the difference between "canon" and "Canon" is simply wrong: English does not distinguish meanings by the use of capitalisation in this way. The use of capitals throughout the article needs improvement, but I won't waste any more time on it.
2. NB WP:BITE, if you please! I have not even had a welcome message yet!
   

SpitintheWind (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DIGNITY / Dignitaries

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam:

DIGNITY / DIGNITARY:

Thomas Potts (1813). T. H. Horne (ed.). A Compendious Law Dictionary (New revised, corrected ed.). London: B. & R. Crosby. p. 207.

DIGNITY, signifies honour and authority, &c., and may be divided into superior and inferior: as the titles of duke, earl, viscount, baron, &c. are the highest names of dignity; and those of baronet, knight, esquire, &c. are the lowest order. ...

DIGNITY ECCLESIASTICAL, ecclesiastical dignities, are those of archbishop, bishop, dean, archdeacon, and prebendary, and the possessor of these dignities are called dignitaries.

--Vicedomino (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A view of the origin of canons

Mildred Anna Rosalie Tuker; Hope Malleson (1900). Handbook to Christian and Ecclesiastical Rome. Vol. Parts III and IV. London and New York: Macmillan.

p. 203: A list of persons entitled to a fixed allowance from the common ecclesiastical fund was kept from the first by the Christian Church; this list was called the matricula. It included the clergy of both sexes, the consecrated Virgins, the old, widowed and poor. The recipients were called Canonici or Matricularii. Thus “canons” is one of the oldest of the terms applied to the clergy, signifying all clerks, presbyters, deacons, deaconesses, lectors, cantors, receiving a fixed allowance.* To be in the Canon in time designated legitimate clergy, and was a term precisely equivalent to our present use of the word canonical.

pp. 207-208: The Canons Regular of the Lateran are the most ancient Community of canons now extant. In 440 Leo I. ordered Gelasius, afterwards pope, and the friend of Augustine, to cause the Lateran clergy to live according to the Rule which had been prescribed by the latter at Hippo. The disorders of the Roman clergy of this epoch are known to us through the letters of Jerome. In 1061 these Regular clerks or canons needed reform, and Alexander II. brought to Rome for the purpose a canon of S. Frediano of Lucca, of which Chapter he was himself a member.” The Lateran was declared to be the head and chief of its many dependent houses, at a Council held two years later; and all the canons of these houses were to be styled Lateran Canons.

p: 212: Canons keep their name and surname like secular priests. Originally all canons were ruled by Priors, but at the present day two out of the three Congregations — namely, those of the Lateran and Prémontré — are governed by an Abbat-General, with abbats over the different houses. They wear pontifical vestments at the great ceremonials. Canonesses are ruled by a Prioress and have no Generals or Provincials. The Lateran Canons (Canonici Lateranensi) have their Procura at S. Pietro in Vincoli, and their chef-lieu in the Macao, Via S. Martino 12 ; they also have the basilica of S. Agnese Fuori.” The Canonesses (Rocchettine) are established at the historic church of S. Pudenziana (Via Agostino Depretis 80--Vicedomino (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

A question

Hi. I noticed you removed a set of "Citation needed" tags at Cardinal Richelieu. Would you be willing to share your reasoning, to help me learn? I'm not questioning your actions, which is why I haven't brought it up on the articles talk page. My guess would be that the editor simply tagged statements and started no discussion about the objections on the talk page. This sort of "drive by tagging" does irk me. Is it as simple as that? Or is it something else? Thanks---- Work permit (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Septizodium

Hello, I admire your work. I wanted to let you know that the Septizodium page still references that conclaves took place there, but as pointed out in several places and here too, it is unclear whether the conclaves took place in the Septizodium or in the church of Santa Lucia in Septisolio. Since you're an expert, could you take a look at it? Maybe correct it and add information about the dispute?--Eccekevin (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old mistake, sanctioned by repetition after repetition without looking at evidence or archaeological facts. Meetings could not take place IN the Septizodium, because it had no rooms. It was a three-story high fountain. See: The New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore 1992, pp. 349-350): "It was actually no more or less that what appears from the plans and drawings that survive, a scaenae frons intended as a frame for a program of statuary, probably portraits of the imperial family. Thre is no sign of water, and though the architectures of nymphaea and scaenae frontes were always closely related and crossed boundaries with each other, it seems unlikely that water was ever intended to be introduced. Rather we should think of this as complete in itself.... What was left in the sixteenth century was a building of three storeys, progressively diminishing in height like a scaenae frons, all three with Corinthian colums.... There was evidently rich coffering in all three storeys, but the upper storeys can have been accessible only by ladders, and there is no sign of a building of any sort behind this façade." The Deaconry of Santa Lucia in Septasolio did have a church, and it seems there was a monastery attached. I go with Saepta Solis (Septasolio), not the medieval corruptions.

--Vicedomino (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roman Catholic Diocese of Sarsina, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University Student Seeking Feedback

Hi there! As part of a university subject, I've been editing the article on Italian historian R.J.B. Bosworth for the past few months. I'd really appreciate any feedback you can give me (on the article talk page or on my talk page) about the style and content of the article, and on ways to improve it. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	We need articles like Graziano da Pisa. Keep up the good work. Unbroken Chain (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Joannes Anagninus

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/SV1159.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alderano Cybo

Hi, Vicedomino. In March 2019 you edited the article on Alderano Cybo as follows: "His family had been forced into exile, due to the murder of the mistress of Alderano's brother-in-law, Jacopo Salviati, allegedly at the instigation of his wife, Veronica, Alderano's sister. The family took up residence in the Palazzo Salviati in Rome".

In fact, however, his family was the ruling house of the sovereign Duchy of Massa and Carrara and was to maintain control over the duchy until their merging into the House of Austria-Este at the end of the 18th century, thus never being exiled. I suppose you might have misinterpreted what the source you mention writes, reporting a very colourful episode, albeit of marginal interest in the cardinal's own life. Here is the English translation of the source’s statement:

He is twenty when, on New Year's Eve between 1633 and 1634, his sister Veronica is alleged to be behind the murder of Caterina Brogi, her husband Jacopo Salviati’s mistress, whose head is then macabrely delivered to him in a basket. The pressures of her family, while repudiating her, manage to save her, who, pardoned by Grand Duke Ferdinando II, is exiled to Villa San Cerbone, and then transferred to Palazzo Salviati in Rome.

I have not found any reference oinline to the possibility that he took lodgings with his sister at the time of his transfer to Rome. I wonder if you'd be willing to look into the matter. Sorry for disturbing. Cheers. Jeanambr (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With every friendly intent, I must say NO to your request. I worked on that page (as you indicated) three years ago, and I have moved on. I did not say that he took up residence with his sister. I do not dispute what you say about the Cibo family ruling Massa and Carrara. I specifically stated that the persons involved in the exile were Alderano, his sister and his brother-in-law. I see nothing to correct. If you do, as an editor you are entitled to repair or add, in accordance with reliable sources. Thanks for your message. Vicedomino (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I express my regret again for the inconvenience I have caused you, but, before intervening in the work done in good faith by other users, I usually prefer to contact them in advance to ask for their opinion and, if of their interest, to suggest their possible direct intervention. That's all. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick II

Your recent editing of the second paragraph of Frederick II is totally messed up. I would fix it but can't make out what you intended to do. Go have a look at it. 92.6.175.196 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello Vicedomino!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western Schism

Your change here, is not supported by the reference, which states, "On 20 September thirteen members of the Sacred College precipitated matters by going into conclave at Fondi and choosing as pope Robert of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII. Some months later the new pontiff, driven from the Kingdom of Naples, took up his residence at Avignon; the schism was complete."

Can you show where the source supports your change to; " Following Pope Gregory's plan, Clement VII returned the part of the papal court which was with him in Italy to Avignon."??? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source to which you refer (a third level source) is (1) A POV Roman Obedience source; (2) editorializing: "precipitated matters", "driven from the kingdom of Naples". The article earlier states that Gregory XI intended to take the papal court back to Avignon as soon as the Easter festivities were over, AND that he intended to visit Naples on his way out of Italy. You should read the entire article, and more of the sources, not just one. (3) There is no evidence that Clement VII was "driven out". By whom??? He was accepted and protected by the Neapolitans, and generally by the king of France. This is all general knowledge and not in need of special citation. Vicedomino (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking your advice...

Hi Vicedomino, do you have any idea how to get an administrator to decide about a proposed page deletion? There are several deletions I proposed which are a bit difficult to decide (it's in the German Wikipedia) and there's one case in which nothing has happened in over a month. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never dealt with administrators, let alone German ones. I am not in favor of users going about finding things to delete. There's so much that needs to be put in. An article deficient in content may just be an article waiting for an interested user to take up the subject.

Vicedomino (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for answering! I delete self-promotional puff which abuses Wikipedia as a free platform. Inflated presentation of banal facts and insignificant careers does serious damage to the information culture on Wikipedia. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]