Talk:Denis of Paris

Merge

Should this not be at St. Denis? Bastie 14:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so. The Saint Denise mentioned is an entirely different entity than Saint Denis and should be on a separate page. Also, Denise is a completely separate name. Mademoiselle Sabina 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, it sounds like two (actually, three) different saints. Cuttycuttiercuttiest 08:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• See San Luigi dei Francesi which links St. Dionigis Areopagitas here. -- RHaworth 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are lots of things called Denis which aren't saints - how should this be dealt with? Drutt 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Note that Dennis and Denise point to disambiguation pages. Drutt 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy. Click on Denis (disambiguation) and make a dab page linking to all the uses of Denis at Wikipedia that you have in mind. Once you're finished {{Other}} at the head of the article here will make a link. --Wetman 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok done, thanks. Drutt 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! excellent! who'da known?--Wetman 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Denis", "Dennis"

To avoid confusion:

There is no difference between "Dennis" and "Denis". The spelling with only one "n" is even the older one (used mainly in Scotland, England, Russia and Germany) and is not(!) necessarily pronounced as in french without the "s".

This article being about "Denis" and not specifically about the "Saint Denis" (at least the Title suggests this), makes this dfferentiation important.

"passio" linked to "passion"?

I think the link from the word "passio" to the page for "passion" is unclear. Seems like a "passio" is refering to a written document ... whereas the page on "passion" refers to specific things or musical compositions. I think we should either unlink it, or enhance the "passion" page to mention "passio"s? Lynchmob98 19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I've remade Passio now to redirect to Passion (Christianity). Passio is simply Latin for passion, in this particular sense. A musical Passion is simply a musical setting. A musical Passion or a Passion play, are simply specific forms of presenting the Passion. Of course the Passion has come down as a series of written documents. --Wetman 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for simply unlinking 'passio' ... just wanted to let you know it was noticed :-) Lynchmob98 05:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image links

Sorry - added note about the medieval dispute between the Abbey of St Denis and Paris Cathedral as to the latter's claimed relic - and consequences of this for artistic depictions. Was about to link to an image on my website illustrating this (http://www.medievalart.org.uk/LeMans/111_pages/LeMans_Bay111_PanelB5.htm) but then noticed in the WP help files that linking to one's own website is frowned upon. Unfortunately I can't stick all my images on Wikimedia owing to French IPRights issues so not sure what the protocol is. Does anyone know any other images of Denis holding just the crown of his head that would suffice? StuartLondon (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You can link to that picture, it would be fine. The prohibitions on linking to your own website is meant to prevent self-promotion/spamming. Thanks for checking about it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification Carl - have gone ahead and added the link. StuartLondon (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"another account"

"Another account has his corpse being thrown in the Seine, but recovered and buried later that night by his converts." Yes, quite another account indeed. The link to an on-line RC website is broken. This account, clearly catering to modern requirements for verisimilitude, will have an interesting history, if we can find citations for it. Where did this "other account" originate? A French Third Republic popularization is my guess.--Wetman (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged with 'undue' July 2014

As a reader, I came to this article and saw it has the 'undue' tag; added the 7th of July by someone at 76.20.47.0. Yet I do not see any discussion of this tag here on the talk page.

When the tag was added, 76.20.47.0 commented in the edit field: (i.e. the idea that this individual actually existed instead of simply being a legendary figure.)

I think the tag is unneeded, as there doesn't seem to be any controversy worthy of a tag. It seems more appropriate for someone concerned about this to add a paragraph or section to the article.

If no further clarification about the tag is forthcoming, I think it can be removed. Benthatsme (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, text clearly indicates that much of the information is derived from tradition and legend; tag removed. (good catch.) Mannanan51 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107080025/http://www.catholic-forum.com:80/saintS/saintd03.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/Saints/saintd03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050422220922/http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1163 to http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1163
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic-forum.com/Saints/saintd03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205031504/http://tntt.org/vni/tlieu/saints/St1009.htm to http://www.tntt.org/vni/tlieu/saints/St1009.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Denis moved to Saint Denis of Paris, and Denis (disambiguation) moved to Denis. I found no consensus on the "Saint Denis → Saint Denis (disambiguation)" move, but no prejudice for anyone who may want to initiate a discussion to move Saint Denis as a stand-alone move request instead as part of a bundled request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Denis → Saint Denis
• Saint Denis → Saint Denis (disambiguation)
• Denis (disambiguation) → Denis

– For most English speakers, "Denis" is not Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for the saint, and the saint is not Wikipedia:MAINTOPIC for "Denis". Many of the current redirects to "Saint Denis" should point to Saint Denis (disambiguation) after the move. jnestorius^(talk) 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• I most likely support the first move, but I'm iffier on the second. Saint Denis currently has no primary topic -- if there is one it is definitely the saint, but I guess the question is, given the number of places named after him, some of which get equal or higher numbers in page views and current usage, with their own long histories, are we certain there is one?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If you don't support the second move, you can't support the first as the two names would clash. Alternatives include:
    • Denis → Saint Denis of Paris
    • Denis → Denis (saint)

    jnestorius^(talk) 15:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

    • Sure, by which I meant I most likely support that the saint is not the primary topic for the base name of Denis.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The current situation is not clear, "Denis" being a given name. The linked proposals will make it easier for users to find what they want. There are, however, lots of links to fix. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1st and 3rd we usually use full names for saints even if primary noting EB uses "Saint Denis". Per Yaksar I'm not sure about primacy for the saint title either since while this one gets 10,772, Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis gets 6,288 and Saint-Denis, Réunion gets 3,829[[1]]. Maybe Saint Denis of Paris which is used in the infobox as natural disambiguation? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Move Denis to either Saint Denis of Paris or Denis (saint) per Yaksar. I dispute that the person is primary for the raw name "Saint Denis" - the Paris suburb and the capital of Reunion are both very important meanings for this term, and it should remain a disambiguation page. Otherwise, happy to support the third move.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 April 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Discussion has died down after having been open for a month with one relisting. The majority of !votes favor the WP:COMMONNAME policy over the MOS:SAINTS guideline. Favonian (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Saint Denis of Paris → Denis of Paris – Per the clergy guideline WP:NCWC that discourages the use of 'Saint' unless it is necessary and the only viable option for disambiguation. ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Addendum The specifically relevant section of the guideline is MOS:SAINTS and I encourage all those voting to take the time to familiarize themselves with this if they are not already familiar, as well as to look at Category:Christian saints from the New Testament and see how consistently this guideline is applied. WP:COMMONNAME is not the overriding policy function for biographies of religious figures. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, people should actually read MOS:SAINTS, of which you give a highly misleading account. And it is over-ridden by WP:COMMONNAME; where does policy say otherwise? Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    I think there's an entire manual of style naming convention specifically for Christian saints for a reason, and I see it generally being followed. I'm just following precedent. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    • Generally it is followed, but it makes it perfectly clear there are exceptions, and this is one of the relatively few. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In this case, the guideline applies. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose fails WP:COMMONNAME, as he is hardly ever called this. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Johnbod. For example Saint Patrick is known as Saint Patrick, never referred to only as Patrick. Denisarona (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:SAINTS allows for some exceptions, especially where the name is such that 'Saint' is the only means of achieving disambiguation. But if you see the linked category in the addendum you will see that these exceptions are far from frequent, and wholly unnecessary in the case of 'Denis of Paris', who is completely recognizable and well differentiated from other entries by his 'of Paris' epithet. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The current title is "Saint Denis of Paris", which is less common than "Denis of Paris". See ngrams. Of course, the proposed title is much less common than "Saint Denis", but that is probably too ambiguous for this article. In any case, the proposed title is certainly viable for disambiguation in this case. The saint is strongly linked to Paris. Srnec (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnbod @Denisarona: Have you seen the Ngrams presented by @Srnec (and which I probably should have run in the first place). It shows that there is considerable use of "Denis of Paris" in prose above and beyond its use in conjunction with the Saint title. And it's not a particularly close run thing. Saint Denis of Paris is neither necessary for disambiguation nor the WP:COMMONNAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support. "Saint Denis" is a common term, largely because of the well-known Parisian suburb town and famous Basilica of Saint-Denis of that name. So I can understand the instinctive resistance - they seem to go together. If we're going to deduct "Saint" from "Saint Denis", then retaining the French spelling seems a bit denuded and awkward. (His name would properly be "Dionysius of Paris" - but that would probably fail the recognizability test). Besides MOS, converting to plain "Denis of Paris" could actually help disambiguate this article from the town and basilica.

Walrasiad (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose terrible idea. "Denis of Paris": could be anyone; a writer, painter, medieval civil servant, Quasimodo's caretaker, etc., etc. Manannan67 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  To assert that, you would have to provide an example of an alternative literary use of "Denis of Paris", which , I suspect, you will not find forthcoming. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Well no, I don't. "Denis of Paris" does absolutely nothing to inform the ordinary user who this guy is -and that's the point. Manannan67 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Well, no you don't, but without examples or sources, your point is moot/crap, because, short of any counter examples, 'Denis of Paris' is clearly the one and only named 'Denis of Paris', by that title, in literature. Perhaps you've missed the MOS:SAINTS guideline, or perhaps the broader point that biography article titles don't contain job titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    You evince an odd compulsion to debate every objection made to your proposal. Frankly, the idea is "crap" (your word). The ordinary user doesn't give a tinker's damn about mentions in literature, they just want to find the article as easily as possible, and Denis of Paris clearly doesn't do it. Manannan67 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    Wikipedia has naming policies and guidelines precisely so that we aren't left guessing what 'ordinary users' think in the realm of opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    "The word "Saint" should never be omitted if it is the only way of referring to the title in a recognizable way." (MOS) Manannan67 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support as Saint is not neutral, [[[MOS:SAINTS]]. --StellarNerd (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title is more common and more recognisable than proposed title. POV as to whether or not he is a Saint (whatever that means) should not come into it at all... meaning it's not a consideration either way. My reading of WP:NCWC (to which the various MOS shortcuts all redirect) is that it supports use of Saint on this occasion, contrary to what is said above. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.