Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin

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)

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)


 * Merge to Archbishop of Dublin or to List of archbishops of Dublin.
 * The dioceses and hierarchy of the Church of Ireland believe they are the successors of the pre-Reformation Catholic church in Ireland, just as with the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Four Marks of the Church, and so forth. The Roman Catholic dioceses believe the same, even though they were reconstituted de novo, and this makes it a knotty problem how best to deal with the lists of bishops and archbishops here at Wikipedia. All of the Anglican churches of the British Isles take their lists of bishops back to the pre-Reformation origins of a diocese, if it has pre-Reformation origins, as the Archdiocese of Dublin does. However, some Wikipedia articles which are specifically to do with the present-day Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland claim the same pre-Reformation bishops as their own.
 * Please see Bishop of Kildare, where I have integrated the two post-Reformation lists with the pre-Reformation list, up to the point where the later parallel dioceses were each united with others, and I would suggest that in the long run this model could prove to be the most even-handed approach to the mismatch in the perceptions of the two churches. If so, then having a list of bishops and archbishops separate from the articles about dioceses with pre-Reformation origins seems to me the best option.
 * The alternative to the above suggestion, I think, is that for every ancient diocese we shall end up with lists of the pre-Reformation bishops or archbishops being included in both of the articles on the parallel post-Reformation dioceses, or in separate list-pages related to each. I see no valid objection to that, as multiple reliable sources will support the inclusions in the case of both churches, but such duplication (and conflict) would surely be unencyclopaedic. Strawless  (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to Sexual abuse scandal
At first sight, the See Other link to the Sexual Abuse Scndal page looks like an act of vandalism. But thinking about it, would it be an act of censorship to delete it? Is it appropriate here at all? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the controversial, recently applied 'link/infobox' template, then see the centralised discussion at Template talk:SACC. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow - ResignBen16 certainly has issues. What do you suggest be done about the further insertion of that type of thing to this article? Is it appropriate here? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be growing consensus that it is not appropriate. There may be a case for a navbox in some shape or form. I'm happy to see the back of this present 'contribution'. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the template was over-used, but certainly the Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin link should remain. You should see the newspapers here in Ireland in the last few years. Unless there is another Catholic archdiocese of Dublin?Red Hurley (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessive honourifics
I agree with an editor's decision to rein in the excessive use of honourifics ("The Most Rev." etc). It's gushing and unnecessary given the context of the info boxes where such honourifics may be safely assumed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Achonry which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Translating into Chinese Wikipedia
The version 06:11, 27 October 2021‎ Pbritti of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)