Talk:Saint Joseph's Day

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 15 dates. [show]

March 19, 2005, March 19, 2006, March 19, 2007, March 19, 2009, March 19, 2010, March 19, 2011, March 19, 2012, March 19, 2013, March 19, 2014, March 19, 2015, March 19, 2016, March 19, 2021, March 19, 2022, March 19, 2023, and March 19, 2024

Holidays

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Saints Mid‑importance

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sicily High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Guthrieg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meatless

I think this custom prevails because the feast predates current Lenten practice. However, I'm not Catholic, so I don't know for certain. Somebody knowledgeable ought to review this whole article. 76.215.2.140 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with La Festa di San Giuseppe

"Solemnity of Saint Joseph" is something hardly anyone is going to search for. My guess is that most people are going to be looking for "St. Joseph's Day" and most will be seeking info on the Italian feast day. Currently, a search on "St. Joseph's Day" sends you here, not there. 76.215.2.140 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father

I don't think "foster father" is an appropriate way to refer to St. Joseph. A foster parent takes in someone else's child, not usually one born to their wife, even if they are not the father. It is a legal term that probably didn't exist in 1st century Bethlehem. You could just as easily call him stepfather, which I don't think is right either. Why not "earthly father" and husband of Jesus' mother Mary? ~ InkQuill 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to question "foster father", a term I have heard for many years for St. Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the term Earthly Father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.45.122 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Polish Christians celebrate the Feast of St. Joseph as well, as he is the patron saint of Poland. 209.37.138.50 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan Capistrano Fiesta Info.

I removed the info. about the Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California festival. Unless I am wrong it doesn't have anything to do with St. Joesph's Day.Truthunmasked (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rank of the celebration

The rank double of the first class does not exist in the Roman Catholic Church anymore. I have corrected the reference to solemnity. However, I kept the other reference because I'm sure it is still used by those called traditional Catholics. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice, however, that if you are using the 1962 missal, both the March 19 feast and the May 1 feast have the rank of first class.

"logjam of feasts"

We notice that the March 19 feast, if conflicting with Holy Week, was, in 2008, transferred to the closest available day BEFORE Palm Sunday, so was observed on March 15 that year). I saw the term "logjam of feasts" which would otherwise have resulted (any year that Easter fell on March 22 thru 26), because Annunciation (listed on March 25) also had to be transferred. It's also come to my attention that St. Patrick's (listed on March 17 and is the Ireland patronal feast), was observed in Ireland on March 14 in 2008 (could not use March 15 because that was being used for St. Joseph). Easter was March 23 in 2008, leading to the rare case of March 17 in Holy Week.

Long ago (say in 1913?), St. Patrick's in that situation would also been postponed to beyond the Sunday after Easter, adding 1 more feast to the "logjam" I referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved (as to each). This is a single close of multiple related contemporaneous moves requests by one nominator – in no particular order, of:

The nomination text is near identical as to each ("To recover/relief/remove from/the abbrevation") and opaque to the extent that we can only infer that abbreviations in article titles are considered poor or improper for unspecified reasons and without a policy- or guideline-based rationale. Each has been opposed on the basis that there is no overarching prohibition or preference in our naming conventions against the use of abbreviations and that the common names policy does not support the move—that the use of St/St. as to each title is more common in a preponderance of reliable English language sources, than is Saint spelled out. Since that was only supported by assertion and by reference to a web search (as opposed to a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, such as of books), I have done a spot check and it is borne out by quite a significant margin, e.g., this versus this. The chief ground for supports was to avoid contests/edit wars over whether or not to affix a period to the abbreviation, i.e, St versus St. We generally do not choose titles based on the possibility of edit wars but rather based on what title is proper, on the merits, under our naming conventions. If any user wishes to take on a requested move on that issue, that can be done separately – though they should probably read all subsections of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English first. Finally, I note that though one contributor was found to be a sockpuppet and his or her !vote was struck where it appeared, the sockpuppet charge as to the nominator was returned unsubstantiated, and does not figure in this close.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Day → Saint Joseph's Day – To replace the abbrevation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:COMMONALITY to avoid editwars about the grammatical dot at "St. / St" due to English dialects -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully the replacement of abbreviations by clear informative full names. Peco Wikau (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC). BLOCKED SOCKPUPPET[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of sources use "St." Also, please note that I started a sock puppet investigation of the proposer, the anon IP above, and Peco Wikau; both the IP and that account appear to be socks of Chicbyaccident. Rockypedia (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The result of this discussion may be impacted by the sockpuppet investigation of the proposer, and should await its outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support avoiding the contested abbreviation in these cases. Srnec (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google turns up 128k hits vs 30k. Alsee (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saint Joseph's Day. 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/20131104172841/http://prayerbook.ca/the-prayer-book-online/57-the-calendar-ix to http://prayerbook.ca/the-prayer-book-online/57-the-calendar-ix

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) 21:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]