Talk:Anglican Diocese of Leeds

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Anglican Diocese of Birmingham - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Page Name
I was wondering if this page should be moved as the New diocese will be called the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales as per the following references, , , and --Mharris99 (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have moved it back to the (disambiguated) name used in the legalisation which will create the diocese. (Cited in the article as 'the scheme.') DBD 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

History and Context
This page might benefit from a section to explain the history and context of the (proposed) Leeds diocese. Whilst the article is well-referenced, it is a little bit confusing to a reader who is not already well aquainted with the structure of the Anglican church. Hopscotch23 (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales. Large majority are in favour of renaming and it's also been shown the majority of reliable sources are using "West Yorkshire and the Dales" instead of "Leeds". Only question then remains whether to use "&" or "and". I've gone with "and" as I think more people were in favour of that and, glancing through the sources, most of the independent ones were using "and". Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Although the legislation gives the official name at Leeds but allows for it to be known as West Yorkshire and the Dales, it is the latter name which is being commonly used, especially by the C of E itself - see http://www.leeds.anglican.org/. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME we should move this article to Diocese of West Yorkshire & The Dales (currently a redirect) and keep the present and official name as a redirect. Nthep (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed this is an interesting case where the url and the name on the page that appears when one opens it are different! My concern would be about the article regarding the Anglican Bishop of Leeds. Regardless of the decision made, both of the pages should be consistent. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be deemed that it should take longer to ascertain a COMMONNAME for a diocese created today. Perhaps it would be better to stick with the official name for the time being? Especially since that would assure consistency with the diocesan bishop's article name as Anupam observes. DBD 22:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does there have to be consistency? The Church seems happy with Diocese of WY & Dales and Bishop of Leeds, I don't see why here should be any different.  As for waiting, the diocese and it's new bishop have made the intent very clear from the outset how the diocese is to be known, that the website url does not tally is not relevant. Nthep (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Add, now the website has been changed to and the bishop-designate's own welcome starts off with "Welcome to the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales."  If that's not indication of how the CofE want to refer to the diocese regardless of what the statutory instrument might make it's official name, I'm not sure what does. Nthep (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that the page is moved from 'Anglican Diocese of Leeds' to 'Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales'. Although through parts of its nascent phase it may have been named Leeds, many legal entities have the power to rename themselves, such as local authorities whom a statutory instrument may give a particular name to a particular body but until its legal genesis (i.e. before it officially comes into existence) or indeed some time afterwards might give that body the power to amend its name to suit its own identity or mission. One recent example is the Combined authority for the Liverpool area: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-super-council-called-halton-6719391 which was what the name given: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/865/contents/made but the authorities involved renamed it: http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/11117617._Super_council__will_take_Liverpool_name/?ref=var_0 and wikipedia as a consequence use the page title of this new name not the original name, although mention is made of this name: Liverpool City Region Combined Authority If the church authorities are happy with 'West Yorskhire and the Dales' and this is used on respectable media outlets such as mainstream newspapers and the bbc, I think it would be appropriate that Wikipedia also adopt this line: http://www.wyadtransformation.org The fact that there are two different standards on wikipedia firstly doesn't shine a good light for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.88 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your 'strong suggestion.' Not at all patronising. I note for the discussion that 'they' seem to favouring rendering as "West Yorkshire & the Dales" (not and or The): . DBD 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the correct heading should be the 'Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales'.http://www.leeds.anglican.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.19.169 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just seeing the diocesan website, it now says, "Welcome to the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales – one of 42 dioceses that make up the Church of England ... Nick Baines, Bishop of Leeds." On 9 July 2014, the BBC wrote, "All three would be replaced by a single new diocese of Leeds, known as West Yorkshire and the Dales." It is clear that the diocese is of West Yorkshire & the Dales. I think that this article should be moved to accommodate this. Wikipedia keeps everything, if the CofE change their mind, we can change it back, it's not a problem. To be honest, I am surprised it hasn't been done already. Pjposullivan (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Anglican Diocese of Leeds → Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales – The diocese refers to itself as the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales, so does the BBC and Synod. It is the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales headed by the Bishop of Leeds. Reliable verifiable sources call it the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales. Furthermore, they only call it the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales. There are no references to a Diocese of Leeds on the CofE's own site. In fact the site links to "westyorkshiredales.anglican.org". It is the official name, the common name used by reliable sources and the name used by neutral organisations (not in the the CofE), such as the BBC. Every time I would search for 'Diocese of Leeds' on British news sites (such as the Times, Telegraph and Guardian, I kept coming up with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds. --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Pjposullivan (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles from local newspapers:


 * Yorkshire Post: 'Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales'
 * Telegraph and Argus: 'Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales'
 * Northern Echo: 'Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales.' Pjposullivan (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relister's comment: Please see this Anglican link for more background. Not everyone who entered a comment on Talk has specifically given their opinion on this move request. It is possible that there is some internal discord within the church which is why the messaging is inconsistent. Anyone with enough patience might find some mention of Anglican reorganization in mainstream newspapers. The press mentions above seem very routine and it's unlikely that much actual reporting was done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


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

The Name of the Diocese

 * There seems to be some confusion in the above discussion over the name of the diocese. Purely and simply, it is officially the Diocese of Leeds. That is flat, that is final. Anglican dioceses in England (please note the qualification) must be named after a city, usually but not always the cathedral city. That is why, in earlier drafts, the diocese was to be named Wakefield and the principal cathedral was to be at Wakefield. (As an aside, given how quickly the diocese has been nicknamed 'West Yorkshire and the Dales', it is ironic to reflect on how much angst there was over the way Leeds was neglected in the original title.)
 * However, because there is already a Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds, and because there is a general tendency in this day and age to refer to areas rather than cities, it was suggested that an extended name could be 'The Diocese of Leeds: The Church of England in West Yorkshire and the Dales'. To save confusion, and because it more accurately describes the area and function of the new diocese, some people including many of those who work for it now refer to it colloquially as 'the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales.' This however is an informal name. Can I please stress the diocese itself has not been renamed. There are no lawful circumstances for a diocese of the Church of England to rename itself after an area rather than a city, and any renaming would in any case require Parliamentary assent.
 * I would argue that in fact this page should be named 'The Diocese of Leeds' (or perhaps 'The Anglican Diocese of Leeds') and begin with the words, 'The Diocese of Leeds, generally known as the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales' - certainly the sidebar should not refer to 'The Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales', because there is no such entity and therefore the content is factually inaccurate.
 * This is of course Wikipedia which nobody trusts very far, but even so and notwithstanding the consensus above I think there should be a bit of tidying up.109.158.92.33 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find actual publications in WP:Reliable sources about the naming issue, that have appeared since the July move discussion was closed? Your personal opinion about the name would not overrule what we can learn from the press and from official announcements. The church seems to have contributed to the naming confusion and they could clear it up if they wanted to. It's not up to Wikipedia to fix misunderstandings created in the real world. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that nobody was looking for reliable sources at the time - they just rather hurriedly said, 'Oh, it's been nicknamed the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales, let's go with that' without pausing to think of what they were saying. I agree the C of E have made a rod for their own backs, but at the same time, there were these sources that could have been used to give some clarity:

Church of England press release: https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2013/07/synod-approves-new-diocese-of-leeds-for-west-yorkshire-and-the-dales.aspx Archbishop of York's announcement: http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3072/first-new-diocese-for-more-than-85-years-will-be-created-on-easter-day Announcement of appointment of new bishop: http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2014/02/first-bishop-of-leeds,-in-west-yorkshire-and-the-dales-named.aspx

Note that in all of them, although it refers colloquially to 'the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales,' the official name of the diocese is given as the Diocese of Leeds. I am not recommending the article be completely renamed, but the sidebar at the very least should be changed. So, for example, there is an article on 'Mahatma' Gandhi because that's what everyone calls him, but the article makes it clear his name was actually Mohandas Gandhi. I would suggest something similar should be attempted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.138.0 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Going by the first reference cited above, perhaps the side template should be changed to "Diocese of Leeds for West Yorkshire and The Dales", but keep the colloquial name for the Wikipedia article as it is. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference is from 2013. The records from the synod in July 2013 and the November 2013 are ambiguous on the name, so the synods themselves do not show an official name. The Privy council signed off on the 'The Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield Reorganization Scheme 2013', not the creation of the diocese. Since the diocese was made by the decision of the synod, it does not require any parliamentary assent. The diocesan website only refers to itself as the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales. The CofE's own website does the same thing. So I cannot help but say that it is officially the Diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You would say wrong, however, because legally all dioceses in England are named after the seat of the Bishop. Therefore it is officially the Diocese of Leeds, and that is that. (Sodor and Man is not in England, before you query that.) The official sources above are therefore valid. However, it is known by its common name for two very good reasons (1) to avoid confusion with the Catholic Diocese of Leeds and (2) to allow for the fact that uniquely among all dioceses of the Church of England, it does not have a Cathedral in the See. I have therefore changed the first sentence to reflect that. The real irony, to my mind, is the colossal fuss that was made about not calling it the diocese of Wakefield if all they do is hide the official name anyway.81.135.62.222 (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Name Change
The Diocese has resolved to change its common name to "Diocese of Leeds", to match the legal name - http://www.westyorkshiredales.anglican.org/content/diocese-be-known-%E2%80%98diocese-leeds%E2%80%99. According to their website the change will be made in July, at which point we should move and update this page. TSP (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Amen and amen. DBD 08:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglican Diocese of Leeds. 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/20140420040111/http://www.wyadtransformation.org/?q=content%2Ffirst-new-diocese-more-85-years-created-april-20 to http://www.wyadtransformation.org/?q=content%2Ffirst-new-diocese-more-85-years-created-april-20

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Lists of churches
I'm not sure where to discuss this best generically (should probably be WikiProject Anglicanism but from previous experience that's basically dead).

User:Mark J added a list of every church in a couple of deaneries to this page (presumably intending to add the others later), with external links to church or parish web pages and a list of their current clergy.

I removed this, as in my view is this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a directory. The clergy names in particular, which amount to more or less a complete staff directory for the organisation, seem to give a huge updating load. The Diocese of Leeds has over 450 clergy - even assuming they stay in post for an average 8 years (which I suspect is a significant overestimate given curates are included), that's still more than one change a week; and if it's outdated it's worse than useless. This seems to me to be information that should be on the Diocesan website or on A Church Near You, not Wikipedia. (Summary statistics and notable churches are fine.)

I now see, though, that this seems to be part of a project to add this data across all dioceses. I'm not sure where is the best place to discuss this? TSP (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * On looking a bit further, I see that Bath and Wells has this: List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells. That page's approach seems a lot more sensible.  It only includes enduring data - names and locations of churches; and is on a separate page so it does not make up the overwhelming majority of the diocese's Wikipedia page.   any thoughts? TSP (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this. Obviously there is a lot of work under review here so apologies for any defensiveness. Here are my current thoughts:


 * I am absolutely fine with this kind of information being placed in separate articles (e.g. List of churches in the Diocese of London) rather than on the pages for each individual diocese if that's thought to be better.
 * The Bath and Wells page contains the following information: parish, benefice, church name, external link to church website (for sourcing purposes). The information about the population of each ecclesiastical parish could presumably be added without much controversy, so the main area under review seems to be the listing of clergy. I would hope that the other information would be retained even if the list of clergy had to go.
 * In terms of your concerns about updating (which I fully understand), my intention was/is to conduct a full review (via Crockfords) at the start of each year. I could actually go one better though and use the Church Times appointments pages (https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/31-august/gazette/appointments/appointments) to update regularly. I am quite happy to do this.
 * Many articles on individual churches (including some less notable ones) contain a list of vicars, so the information that 'X is/was the vicar of Y' is not considered too un-notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If it's OK to store lists of past vicars of a single church, is it not OK to store lists of present vicars of multiple churches?
 * It could be argued this is different from merely compiling a list of employees of an organisation, because being a member of the clergy in the CoE was and is a public position of some importance in local society. A possible comparison would be a list of county councillors or town mayors.
 * Much of the information on the other diocese pages has been there for several months and I think about a year in some cases, and this is the first time anyone's flagged it up as problematic - so my assumption (perhaps unfounded) was that everybody was fine with it.
 * It would obviously be beneficial to get a third opinion though I imagine there may not be that many users interested in this field.
 * All the best, Mark J (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mark. Yes, I'm sorry for leaping in so far into the process; unfortunately I only have a couple of dioceses on my watchlist, so this is the first time I'd noticed this project.  I also would have opened discussion before reverting had I realised it was part of a bigger project.  (There really needs to be a better place to discuss things like this that affect a large number of CofE pages, but I'm not sure where that would be.)
 * On the first point, I do think that a separate page is better - on most diocese pages which now have this information, it's the great majority of the page, which I think looks rather disproportionate. The Bath and Wells way of doing it seems a better balance to me.
 * I guess my concern about staff is whether the value of the information is proportionate to the editor effort of keeping it updated. It's great that you are currently prepared to do this; but equally we can't predict how long you will remain able and willing to do that; and currently there's no indication on the pages of the date of the information currently on there, or its source.  (Admittedly that's also true of most individual church articles that have the same information.)  This would seem to me to be information easily gained from A Church Near You and diocesan sites, where it is already someone's job to keep it up to date.  If it is to be included, a source should be given, both in line with general Wikipedia principles, and so users can go and check if it's still the same.
 * I'm generally pretty wary of up-to-the-minute information like this anywhere on Wikipedia - I watch quite a few university and college pages, and there is always a push to put on the current Students' Union/JCR President, Boat Club President, Snooker Club Captain, etc etc. Very often where these are listed, they have no indication of when they were added, and they are often a few years out of date.  I think there's a general tolerance for a few people per organisation - university Chancellors and Vice Chancellors, bishops; where an individual church is notable enough and has enough editor attention to have its own Wikipedia page, that probably also applies to the vicar of that parish; but when it's an entire diocese and all the clergy in it, I'm not so sure it does?  Similarly, I think it would be wrong if a council page listed every member of the council (my council just lists the chairman and the leader), or if a university page listed the head of every department (mine just lists the Chancellor and VC); even if those positions would be considered quite notable ones.
 * I did flag this on Wikiproject Anglicanism, in case anyone else wanted to weigh in, but my perception from putting things on there in the past is that it doesn't attract much attention, and I'm not sure where else might attract more opinions. TSP (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fine, you weren't to know this was going on, it doesn't deprive you of the right to speak now. No problem with separate pages. I accept your arguments with respect to borderline notability. To be honest, the aim is more to show that this or that benefice of 9 or 10 churches and 8,000 people has (say) 1 or 2 or 3 clergy assigned to it; the names are unimportant in that sense, but it gives a sense of where the church is stronger and weaker. It is easy to find out a church's vicar (most of the time) by going to ACNY, but it's not easy to work out that this or that vicar has charge of these 7 or 8 churches.
 * Re sourcing, I am happy to comply so that people can indeed check for themselves. As you say the raw information can be found on ACNY. Ditto with adding a note to say when the information was updated (if the aim is to update it at intervals). No problems there.
 * I don't like to ask this sort of thing, but... With said changes in place and proper protocols followed (I don't want this to end up like the years out-of-date pages I've seen either), would you be prepared to tolerate updates once a year, with the date of the most recent update at the top of each list so nobody is misled about the age of the data? Or would you only be prepared to tolerate this carrying on if the updates were immediate? Or, in fact, do you reckon this isn't really tenable at all? Mark J (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly, I have no authority, I'm just another editor, and one who has invested a lot less in this than you have; so you don't have to make me happy :-) I will not actually run around Wikipedia reverting you, and it seems like no-one else minds.
 * I guess I feel that an annual update cycle would to rather tend to uphold my reservations about the clergy list element of the project, though. Any kind of data can get out of date; but I think the reason for keeping names of people to a minimum on most pages is to increase the possibility that they will be updated when things change.  If, say, an MP, or the CEO of a significant organisation, or a bishop were to change, I'd hope that someone would notice and update that fact reasonably promptly.  Similarly, a church where someone has gone to the effort to establish notability and write an article hopefully has people interested enough to update that basic detail when it changes, which for a single institution doesn't happen that often.
 * Whereas when you're looking at lists of hundreds of clergy, thousands across all the dioceses (I think the CofE has about 7-8,000 stipendiary clergy) - most for churches which have never attracted enough editor attention to have any presence on Wikipedia other than in list form - it seems likely that they will only get updated at the annual update. At which point, that seems like a huge amount of effort to provide on Wikipedia what could be 11-months-out-of-date information; when the current information should be already maintained and just a weblink away. TSP (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been trying to make up my mind. I'm really grateful for the gracious way you've engaged with me on this and I want to be clear that your arguments have carried a lot of weight with me and given me a lot to think about. In the end the position I'm in at the moment is that as long as everything is properly referenced, and no one is under any illusions about when the data was last updated, it's better to have the data there (for the reasons sketched in my reply above), even if it's a few months out of date, than not to have it at all. What I intend to do now is reference everything - I've done Birmingham but it'll take a bit of time (and it provides a chance to update while I'm at it). If while I'm doing that I come to the conclusion that I'm wrong, or if I come to that conclusion in January, or at any subsequent point, I promise I'll delete the column rather than leave the info to get more and more out of date. If discomfort arises from any other users in the future, then that, coming on top of your arguments here, will cause me to rethink again. I really appreciate your tolerance here, even if what I'm up to seems mad to you (and who knows, I may come to that conclusion myself in time). Mark J (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

One additional slightly separate question (so breaking this out of the main thread of conversation above) - I noticed you'd done Sheffield, so took a look at my old parish, Sheffield Manor. That appears on your list as "Sheffield Manor (St Swithun)". The Manor parish has three churches, which as far as I know are formally equal, but if any was to be considered the 'lead' church, I'd have thought it would be St Aidan's - I was wondering how you determined what name to use? TSP (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can answer that one quickly! - apologies if this is behind a paywall for you, but the name "Sheffield Manor (St Swithun)" is given in the list of benefices in the deanery in Crockfords, e.g. https://www.crockford.org.uk/places/20511/deanery-of-attercliffe. On ACNY, however, the benefice name is given simply as Sheffield Manor. I am assuming that the longer version was the 'official' name of the benefice. Mark J (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I don't have access to the online Crockford, but have last year's print copy and it's the same.  I wonder why - the parish website confirms my recollection that St Aidan's church was founded first, and when I lived there in the 1980s I think would have been clearly considered the principal church if any was - it was by some way the most active, and was where the team rector and parish office were based; which also seems to be the case now. So I wonder on what basis and by whom the parish was ever designated St Swithun rather than St Aidan.  I seem to recall there was a period when the Team Rector moved to St Swithun, so I wonder if it got redesignated at that point and never changed back?  TSP (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know it's not just an idiosyncrasy of the online version. Yes, wish I knew but it's a strange business. I've discovered all kinds of oddities and inconsistencies in benefice names. Mark J (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)