Talk:Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland)

Discussions from Talk:Archdiocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland)
NB -- on 16 January 2006 this page was moved; the discussions in this section took place on its talk page under its old name, "Archdiocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland)".

page move
For a host of reasons, this page should be moved to Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland): firstly because 'archdiocese' isn't a very often-used word among Anglicans, secondly for simple reasons of parallelism with other bishops and archbishops, and thirdly because that is what the page's content (aside from the first sentence) seems to presume. Whether this is best served by swapping this page and that one (currently a redirect page with more than one line in the edit summary) or whether by merging the two, or whether by a cut-and-paste move (with appropriate commenting) I'm not sure. Doops | talk 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: in other similar cases there is typically both a page for the office (Archbishop of York) and one for the diocese (Diocese of York); there is no reason why the same should not be true here. Doops | talk 21:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've been bold and tried to clean things up somewhat. I didn't see any point in trying to make the defunct name work, though, so until the page move is made there will be a slight mismatch. Doops | talk 21:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You must know a different set of Anglicans than I do. But I agree that this should be divided into an article on the Archdiocese, and a listof Archbishops; see List of Archbishops of York for a nice format. I'm not sure this needs a move: Archdiocese_of_Armagh_%28Church_of_Ireland%29 and Archbishop_of_Armagh_%28Church_of_Ireland%29 would be good titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, let me clarify:
 * The article on Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland) would be an article about the office, and its office-holders, and its powers, and its history, and so forth. This is the natural home of most of the content currently written in the present article (the one on whose talk page we are conversing) and most of the links to it, so that's why I proposed a "move."
 * The article on Diocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland) would be an article on the actual diocese itself &mdash; its geography, its synod, its history, and so forth. So far other similar articles (e.g. Diocese of York) tend to be rather short, although someday there may be more to say. As to whether the article's page name should say "diocese" or "archdiocese," I would refer to the diocese's own website: and the CofI website:.
 * Again, I'm a little hazy on how the edit history can most gracefully be preserved; whether a page swap, a page-merge, or a cut-and-paste (with appropriate commenting on where to find earlier history) is the best way. (Personally, I'm leery of merges, as they seem to obscure history even as they seek to preserve it.) Doops | talk 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing this move request
Ok, I'm ready to close this out, but I want to make sure I'm clear on what's been decided. It sounds as if we want to have two separate articles, one for the office of Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland), and one for the Diocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland) itself. The current article seems to be about the office of the Archbishop, and prominent Archbishops in history, so it appears we would want to move the history of this article to Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland), and then redirect this page to Diocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland), which would have to be written from scratch. Is that correct? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's right (assuming there are no objections). Now if Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland) had a trivial one-line edit history setting it up as a redirect hither, I could (if I recall correctly) make the move myself without needing admin powers. But its edit history is a little more complicated; and that's what's confusing me. How can you merge two edit histories in a way that isn't highly confusing and opaque? I just don't get it. The frequently decried cut-and-paste page move seems a lot safer and clearer to me, as long as the edit summary for the move reads "cutting-and-pasting text from "; the price you'd pay in one or two extra mouse-clicks would seem to me to be more than adequately paid for in lack of confusion. But, hey, I won't waste all your time with philosophical questions. :) Doops | talk 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It really varies from case to case, how these things are handled. In this case, all of the history of the "Archbishop" article except for the most recent edit (to a redirect) happened before the "Archdiocese" article was even created.  Thus, I'll just move all of the history from "Archdiocese" to "Archbishop", deleting the history at "Archbishop" in the process, and then I'll undelete all but the most recent edit from the "Archbishop" article, and it will appear as oldest four versions in the combined history.
 * It might not be the most elegant solution imaginable, and if we didn't have the good luck that all edits at one page are older than all edits at the other page, I might have swapped the two histories instead.
 * I'm sure that's more than you wanted to know... I'll go ahead and move the article now. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the page and changed the redirect at Archdiocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland). I'll let someone else write the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Now: should Talk:Archdiocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland) be a) blanked; or b) redirect to Talk:Diocese of Armagh (Church of Ireland)? 'Cos right now it still redirects hither! Doops |  talk 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because its only incoming link was from this very conversation, I deleted it, and it shouldn't be missed. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How chosen?
According to the article Church of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh is the top man in the Church of Ireland, and is chosen by a different process from that by which all other bishops are chosen. What is this process? J S Ayer (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). 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/20080907062155/http://www.stpatricks-cathedral.org:80/history.asp to http://www.stpatricks-cathedral.org/history.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). 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/20080509171015/http://www.stpatricks-cathedral.org/archbishops.asp to http://www.stpatricks-cathedral.org/archbishops.asp

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) 14:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)