Talk:Anglican Diocese of Manchester

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No supporting comments, will re-open as a multiple move request including other dioceses metioned in discussion (non-admin closure) A.D.Hope (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Anglican Diocese of ManchesterDiocese of Manchester (United Kingdom) – The article's current name disambiguates it from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, which is located in New Hampshire, USA. My concern is that the current title implies that there is a Roman Catholic diocese of Manchester in the UK, when in reality the diocese of Salford covers the city. Disambiguating by location rather than Christian denomination makes it clearer that only one UK diocese is named after Manchester.

I've opted for 'Manchester (United Kingdom)' over 'Manchester, United Kingdom' as although the name of the diocese includes 'Manchester' it's an organisation rather than a place name. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'd prefer "England" as it is the Church of England, plus shorter. But neutral overall, as the current is WP:NATURALDAB. DankJae 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either "England" or "United Kingdom" works, and I can't say I have a very strong preference either way. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 January 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus that the current natural disambiguation is more appropriate (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The rationale for these moves is the same as that given in the request above, but expanded to include the articles of all Church of England dioceses in the same position. The current names of these articles disambiguate them from dioceses in other countries, namely the:

The current titles imply that there are dioceses of other denominations based in these three English cities, when in reality only the Church of England dioceses are based there. Disambiguating by location rather than Christian denomination makes this clearer. It should be contrasted with, for example, Anglican Diocese of Southwark and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark, where two dioceses of different denominations names are named after the same district.

I'm ambivalent as to whether the disambiguation should be to (United Kingdom) or (England); either works. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Greater Manchester has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure whether I agree they should be moved or not, but if they are then it should be to Diocese of Foo (Church of England). And the North American ones should be moved too for absolute unambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to 'Diocese of Manchester (Church of England)' would still imply that there are other dioceses named 'Diocese of Manchester' in Manchester, UK, which isn't the case. Disambiguating by location rather than denomination solves this problem.
    As I understand it there's a convention that Roman Catholic diocese articles are titled 'Roman Catholic diocese of...' even when disambiguation by denomination isn't needed. This move request can't address that convention. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This about church structure, not geography. And churches define their dioceses by name. Where names overlap, the usual disambiguation is "Anglican", e.g. Anglican Diocese of Liverpool vs. Roman Catholic Diocese of Liverpool. Unless the same church uses the same diocesal name more than once, geographic disambiguation is unnecessary. Walrasiad (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Anglican Diocese of Liverpool and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Liverpool are both based in Liverpool, UK, so disambiguation by denomination is appropriate. Conversely, the Anglican Diocese of Manchester is located in Manchester, UK and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester is located in Manchester, New Hampshire. This makes geographic disambiguation more appropriate, as we are disambiguating two dioceses with the same name in different cities, not two dioceses with the same name located in the same city. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does geography matter? It seems denominational difference is of greater importance. Walrasiad (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography is more important in these instances, as the dioceses are not located in the same city. The current disambiguation doesn't make this clear. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I don't agree. These are church structures. Denomination is the important distinguisher. Geography is not relevant. This is not about the geographic location of a church, it is about a unit in church hierarchy. There's only one Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, and there's only one Anglican Diocese of Manchester. If there was a Catholic Diocese in Manchester (UK), then it would need the geographical distinction. But until then, it doesn't. Walrasiad (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dioceses are geographic church structures. There's only one diocese in Manchester, UK, and only one diocese in Manchester, USA, so the denomination doesn't need to be specified but the location does. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dioceses are units of a church hierarchy. They have geographic jurisdictions, but it is not confined to a town stated in the title, e.g. the Bishop of Ely is the bishop of Cambridgeshire and spends most of his time in Cambridge. But it is still called the "Diocese of Ely". In the Anglican hierarchy, there's only one Diocese of Manchester. In the Catholic hierarchy, there's only one Diocese of Manchester. By the way, there is a Catholic Diocese in Manchester UK, it is called the "Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford". And there is an Anglican diocese in New Hampshire, called Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. They cover the same geography.
To put in more clearly: there are two dioceses in Manchester UK: the Anglican "Diocese of Manchester" and the Catholic "Diocese of Salford". And there are two dioceses in Manchester, USA: the Anglican "Diocese of New Hampshire" and the Catholic "Diocese of Manchester". Walrasiad (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia's purposes both of your examples are already disambiguated, as although those dioceses serve similar areas they have different names.
The dioceses I've listed in the move request share a name with another diocese, but not a location. In my opinion it therefore makes more sense to disambiguate by location than by denomination, as the former is the main distinguishing factor. The current titles could imply, for example, that there is a Roman Catholic Diocese of Peterborough in the UK, when there isn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have to disagree. Dioceses are proper names, not geographical descriptions. We also don't specify "London, Ontario" in the title of London International Airport or the London Children's Museum, which are also proper names. There are dioceses named after murky things, misleading locations (e.g. Diocese of Caledonia), and many simply exist on paper (List of Catholic titular sees). Every Catholic diocese article already starts with "Roman Catholic diocese of....", and Anglican diocese articles, when disambiguation is needed, start with "Anglican diocese of ...". Disambiguation by denomination is the right way to go, and sufficient. A hatnote can be added if needed. Walrasiad (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal uses parenthetical disambiguation (see WP:NCDAB), e.g. "Diocese of Peterborough (United Kingdom)", so it is clear that the disambiguation doesn't form part of the name of the diocese. It also helps to make it clearer that the disambiguation is with a diocese of the same name in a different country, not with a diocese of the same name in the same city; there is no other UK diocese named after Peterborough.
I'm sorry, but I don't really see what dioceses named after 'murky things' or Catholic titular sees have to do with this specific move request. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the geography is often irrelevant. These are proper names as assigned and used by the church hierarchy. The natural way to disambiguate would be by denomination, not country. Walrasiad (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you for engaging in discussion, and I'm increasingly conscious that it's not my role to persuade you to change your opinion. We've both laid out our case in a way which should be helpful to the closing editor, so shall we leave it here? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.