User talk:DBD/Archive 21

August – October 2012

Priests and archbishops

I do not think that the mass moving of article to the dab word priest is a good idea, of moving archbishop to bishop. Priest has a specific meaning in British English, it implies a Roman Catholic. A parish will have a vicar or a rector (who is CofE) if someone says the local priest that is usually short for "local Roman Catholic priest". What are you going to do about members of other protestant churches are they priests too? As for archbishop to bishop, most men who hold that rank are more notable when archbishops rather than bishops, so is is likely that their names will be searched on with the word Archbishop rather than Bishop. -- PBS (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that priest implies RC (although it is conceivable I may have lost touch with the common usage there). In both cases (priest & bishop) I was (am) going for accuracy over common usage – these men are priests (or are bishops) – vicar, rector, archdeacon, dean or archbishop is merely a job. (I have been careful to not to move non-priests such as "ministers" or presbyters to this dab btw.) The searching point is moot – either their name will be put in, and people will arrive at a dab page, or they will be searched, in which case the word 'archbishop' is in the page anyway. DBD 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy over common usage is not how article titles are derived. Article titles are are based on common usage in reliable sources. As to the comment about jobs not quite that simple, for example "The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester are ex-officio members of the House of Lords"[1]. -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I mean is: dabbing by (priest) or (bishop) where possible is preferable because it takes a long-term view of the subject, rather than one job they held. If we do dab by their job, we use their senior/most recent job in full (e.g. Matthew Hutton (archbishop of Canterbury) vs Matthew Hutton (archbishop of York)) because, while one can be a bishop but not have a bishop's job, one cannot be an archbishop without an archbishop's job. Mutatis mutandis priest and vicar/what-have-you. DBD 11:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While in most cases the most senior position that a person holds will be when they were at their most notable, this is not always the case. If a person is most notable in a more junior position, then that may be the best dab to use (some editorial judgement is needed). -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Sorry, I was generalising. DBD 11:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated comment, but I too disagree with moving archbishop->bishop. If someone is only notable for their time as an archbishop, that's how they should be disambiguated. I think the default reader assumption would be that the identifier would either be the last role held, or their most notable role - which will generally be archbishop in both cases, barring rare cases where someone was mostly known during their time as bishop. SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priests and archdeacons

Having had my attention caught by the thrash over Charles Dodgson (priest), I have a question: Is there a guideline or a discussion somewhere that supports your renaming of the page, or was it something you did on your own initiative? — Paul A (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My initiative, although I have gained support from some other concerned editors, and it has not been against any guidelines. DBD 09:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dodgson (archdeacon)

Please give me a link to the policy you mention on my talk page. Does the same policy mean that we cannot have an article called Charles Dodgson (bishop)? Please also respond to the comments I am about to make on the talk page of the article.--Collingwood (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Walsh (priest)

I've declined the request to speedy-delete this page, instead changing the target to James Walsh#Religious. Upon further inspection it is clear that there are multiple notable priests named James Walsh, so a redirect to disambiguation page subsection would be appropriate. Deryck C. 11:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't notice the American RC priest. Cheers DBD 11:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) Deryck C. 11:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang about. If the two American RCs were bishops, then the Irish Anglican belongs at (priest), because he is the only one! DBD 13:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that works - bishops are a subset of priests! Deryck C. 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missioner

Hi, I noticed you created Missioner as a redirect to Mission (Christianity). Perhaps there is something about this topic that I don't know, but the er on missioner would seem to be like something someone would use to refer to "one who missions" or in other words, a missionary. Do you think the redirect would be better off pointing to there? Ryan Vesey 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, I think American Episcopal Convocation of Churches might be better off redirected to Episcopal Church (United States). Ryan Vesey 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in the first case – there is a subtlety of meaning in that a missioner works to encourage other peoples' missionary activity. In the second case AECC is another specific (old, I think) name for the CECE, not for the whole or any other part of the PECUSA. DBD 12:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles

The chart is my post. I created it to compare possible titles for the article, which "Prince of Wales" is not. I don't see the chart as raw material to be cut up and used for another purpose. Kauffner (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read this under the edit box? "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." DBD 16:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Letitia Dean

DBD, I see you have recently edited this page. Did you notice the photo? I think it is awful to have,as their image on Wikipedia, a picture of someone grieving at their friends funeral . Any ideas who I could complain to?Bashereyre (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gran2, looks like. DBD 13:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden

The article Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One is entitled to ask, one should suppose, what a child aged five has done to render himself notable. Whilst related to notable people he appears on the evidence of the article to have, as yet (not surprisingly) achieved nothing whatsoever

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assistant Bishops of Birmingham

Has the title "Assistant Bishop of Birmingham" ever existed as a non-retired post? Some of the men listed on that template have been honorary assistant bishops in Birmingham, but not "Assistant Bishop of Birmingham", but have some of them actually held that post? DBD 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I think this one could be deleted Bashereyre (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011 royal tour of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William IV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject membership

Would I be allowed to remove my moniker from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration's membership? GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot, I've acted for you. Seemed simpler. DBD 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DBD. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan navboxen

Hi Bash, Plucas and anyone else. I wonder what your thoughts are on my idea (Template:Diocese of Durham) for a general diocesan navbox rather than an office holders one (e.g. Template:Office holders in the Diocese of Chelmsford). DBD 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection would be that by including the names of the current office holders in the template the templates would require constant review to keep them up to date, a serious task considering the many English, Welsh and Irish dioceses. Plucas58 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point – of course we could omit the incumbents' names. However, I do already keep these three articles up to date by reading the Church Times each week. DBD 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I was at University between my department and the Church Times office was a pub, where we all used to intermingle. How they ever got a newspaper out was beyond me. Bashereyre (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Nearly forgot why I asked my threepence worth. DBD knows his stuff and as long as he sustains his enthusiasm for Wikipedia I feel that the Anglican temps are in safe hands.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anglican Church of Southern Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Johannesburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B&I topic ban

Howdy DBD, just wondering if you & Steven would consider lifting or modifying my community ban. There's alot of gnome corrections needed on those articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie :( GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temp: Exeter

Looks really good now DBD Bashereyre (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requsted

Could you look at this debate and se if you can add anything Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William FitsrogoBashereyre (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]