Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Catholicism Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.

[edit] Name change

Why was a name change made without discussion? The structure of Diocese of X (denomination) is a lot more sensible than all the different permutations of Denomination Diocese of X, and much better for grouping similar geographic territories. 194.182.142.5 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to name the articles for the Roman Catholic Church. I lean toward using Roman Catholic Diocese of X. Often other denominations have diocese names that are exactly the same as the Roman Catholic Diocese. Some examples: Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Roman Catholic Diocese of Makurdi and the Anglican Diocese of Makurdi, and the Roman Catholic, Ukrainian, and Armenian Archdioceses of Lviv. This fact would suggest to me that the best structure would be to have the following: individual diocesan pages with the denomination, disambiguation pages for Diocese of X where more than one denomination is present, and redirect pages where another denomination is not present. Npeters22 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and a subject where a guideline would help. I, like the first speaker, like the idea of, e.g. (Arch)diocese of Dublin (RC), (CoI), (Orthodox) or whatever, but I don't think it is critical, would be inclined to go with whatever is most common in each country and see merit in the idea of a disamb. page for all similarly-named dioceses.

However, the failure to propose and discuss the change, and likewise to discuss or comment the rating of the page, I do disagree with. And I think this page is better than Start-class, though with plenty of room for improvement. 217.118.66.40 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

There is a new article Archbishop of Dublin (Roman Catholic) which is very good but duplicates Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin . The office encompasses the person, his duties, and the territory; the history of the office encompasses the personalities and the times they lived through. The information in the current two articles should be merged, and maybe split more logically afterwards. There are perhaps 3 logical sections: 1. history; 2. current diocese organization 3. list of office-holders. jnestorius^(talk) 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: I noted the overlap in separating Archbishop of Dublin (RC) from Primate of Ireland but would strongly disagree with a merge with the Diocese as a solution. The territory, with all its many officials, and the leading office should, I think, be distinct. But some action is needed - to my mind, the pruning of the vast amount of material about the diocese rather than the bishop from the Archnishop article. SeoR (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

After this pruning, what do you envisage will remain in the Archbishop article? To my mind, nothing but a list of the former archbishops. Is there anything peculiar to the Dublin office that is not covered in archbishop? Of course the office is logically distinct from the territory. But that doesn't mean they should be disentangled into separate articles. jnestorius^(talk) 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Like many historic posts, I think there will be something, especially as there may have been a form of Bishop of Dublin before the Diocese. Best bet is that I try making such an article, Sandbox style, and we see if there is enough. Of course, if there is not enough, we can always go for just having a List of Bishops and Archbishops of Dublin (RC), and a small section in the Archdiocese article. SeoR (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a good idea to start off with separate articles in the expectation that eventually there will be enough distinct information for each. Let's merge now to avoid duplication of effort: if the article become too long we can split it later into separate articles. If you are adamant about having two articles, I could live with having the list of office-holders as a separate article, as you suggest, since each can be easily and obviously linked to the other without duplication. Even this is currently unnecessary, I feel, because the combined article is still short enough to be manageable, and it is useful to refer to the list while reading the prose history. jnestorius^(talk) 17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally favour such merges. Any subsequent split that seems needed might be along other lines than diocese/bishop, which is never particularly useful. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)