Talk:Lists of popes, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops

Untitled
Since the word "bishops" in the thread title isn't part of a person's title, I don't think it should be capitalized. "[Formal titles] are lowercased standing alone and in plural uses: the prime minister, the archbishop, premiers Brian Tobin and Mike Harcourt." (Caps and Spelling, Canadian Press) Discussion? - Montr&eacute;alais

eh...why do we have to spend so much time arguing over capitalization? So long as we make a redirect from the one, I don't see that it's worth worrying about. Why not write a new article on something interesting instead of wasting time on disputable style points? (not to say you're wrong, of course, just that I'm really, really sick of arguments over capitalization, especially in article titles, given that usual English language conventions are that titles ought to be capitalized. Couldn't we make article title non-case-sensitive, or something?) john 06:20 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--- Edited the table to reflect the Sede Vacantes. -Penta 05:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of having the names of two particular individual bishops in what is otherwise a list of lists or of articles on bishoprics. We can obviously not have every single individual bishop in this list anyway. I am removing this section and expect a very good argument from anyone wanting to put it back. up◦land 07:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox Archbishops
Hallo, I am the one that made part of the list of orthodox archbishops. Unfortunately i cannot login in these days, and I must use the anonymous account. I am sorry of that. This are my notes about the orthodox archbishops editing. 1) Of course a list of only 1 or 2 archbishops is not a proper list. BUT if the list is full (that is, all the archbishops of that archdiocese have been recorded there, even if it is only one in the history of this new archdiocese), it deserves to be kept because it will be updated when the archbishop will change and from now to 10 or 20 years it will be very valuable to have kept it in this common dominion. 2) I made two things in my orthodox archbishops editing. First, i put there in the menu all the archdioceses, and second completing their list one by one. But unfortunately I still couldn't find the lists for Akhalkalakhi, Bolnisi, Borjomi, Chiatura, Nikortsminda, Nikozi, Shemokmedi, Tsilkani (all of Georgian orthodox church). These are still missing and if someone can help me to fill them all it would be a very important gift! 3) The archbishops that I didn't put even in the menu (three of which someone else has already put, and that I am going to remove, or, at least, to shift in another chapter) have one or more of the following problems (for which I would not like to consider full "Orthodox Archbishops"). a) Some of them are not in full communion with the communion of orthodox churches. We can of course record them, but for completeness of information it should be done in a separate chapter. b) In the patriarchate of Moscow, archbishop is a title of the person and not of the see. Then, there's no point in putting them in the chronological lists of archbishoprics. At least, they should stay in the list of bishops, with the title of archbishop when they have it, otherwise we will have to shift them from list of archbishops to list of bishops and viceversa each time that the person in charge changes. c) Some of them, though titular of an archdiocese, don't use to call themselves archbishops (but in some cases they could do that if they would like to). In some patriarchates (like in the costantinopolis ecumenic one) metropolitan is more than archbishop, in others (like Romania and Georgia) it is less, while in also other ones it is exactly synonim. Could we then make a separate list for Orthodox metropolitans? Wow thank you that would be wonderful!!!!! d) Some of them, though in full communion with the apostolic orthodox church, are recognized by it as bishops only, while they self-styled themselves as archbishops (an example is the russo-carpathian bishop of toronto, not to be confounded with the ukrainian one that I put there). I just try now to make all these modifications, and to show you as it should be.

Orthodox bishops
The question: I have a virtually complete list of orthodox bishops, but they are at least four hundreds. For the very large majority of them, it is unlikely that we will have a full list in normal times. Is it the case to put them in the menu or not? Because if someone else is putting there 1 or 2 of thems, making confusion between metropolitans and not in full communion and so on, and without ANY list, it is better that I put them all in the menu just to clarify it all. If you believe that they are too many, and that they should be put there only when there is the list, then you should also delete the ones that already are there. I wait for your answer. Thank you!!! Luca


 * To respond to both parts, I think perhaps this page should be split up into Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican (or Protestant in general) articles. It's getting rather large now! For the Orthodox archbishops/bishops, I've been trying to make a list as well, but my own unfamiliarity with Orthodox church structure makes it difficult. Should they be divided according to autocephalous churches? And what do we do with metropolitans, as you mentioned? (We could have a separate section in a separate article for Orthodox archbishops/bishops, I suppose.) What about eparchs and exarchs? I'm not sure how to list them. Adam Bishop 16:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, the Roman Catholic archbishops listing is now just going to duplicate List of Roman Catholic archdioceses. So we can probably get rid of those entirely. Adam Bishop 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Everything moved
Okay, since this page was getting huge now that we've started adding everything to it, rather than just the ones with existing articles, I've split everything off into separate articles (which are now of course listed on this article).

I hope everyone is fine with this; it seems a little drastic and disruptive but I think everything will work out better this way. Adam Bishop 22:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lists of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops. 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://archive.is/20120714144621/http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=5855 to http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=5855

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) 05:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Lists of popes, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops → Lists of primates (religion) – According to discussion on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_26. See also: Primate (bishop). Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because bishops are not primates and only some archbishops are. I might accept a different rename for both this and the suggested target.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too easily confused with List of primates, would confuse the present Category:Lists of primates, and the present title serves well as a descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Peterkingiron and Randy Kryn. As Peterkingiron, if there is a better name, I'm not against that idea, as the current one is pretty long and seems to describe a "group" of sorts which a word might exist for, something like List of higher clergy (Christianity) (not sure what the naming conventions are, and this is just an example). --Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2018 (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.