This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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 — 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)
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 <old name here>"; 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)