Talk:Diocese of London

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

New Disambig Bishop of Edmonton

Since there are Bishops of Edmonton in Edmonton, Canada as well. Kevlar67 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map needed

A map showing how the diocese's boundaries differ from Greater London's would be useful - see London postal district#Relationship to London boundary or 020 (UK dial code) for similar ones. Timrollpickering 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

Please find here the coat of arms of the diocese. I am a little bit reluctant to insert it by myself because of the funny layout with these boxes. Is anyone interested?--Rabe! (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative episcopal oversight wording

The long-standing wording in this and other CofE diocese articles has been:

"Alternative episcopal oversight (for parishes in the diocese which reject the ministry of priests who are women)"

User:Anglicanus has been replacing this with:

"Alternative episcopal oversight (for parishes in the diocese which do not accept the ordination of women as priests)"

I have been reverting these edits but he has been reinstating them (contrary to WP:BRD). We both maintain that 'our own' phrasing is more neutral. What do others think? DBD 18:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you could spend their time better by discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. DDStretch (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. DBD 12:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, but I really do hope that you understand the serious message behind what might appear at first to be a flippant remark: that you both were beginning to start an edit-war up to the discussion thread here over a truly minor issue, and that both of you should know better than to have done this. DDStretch (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DBD. As someone with some personal interest in this particular matter and Anglican matters generally, I have just looked at some of the editing history on this and I really must say that Anglicanus's phrasing is much more preferable to me both in terms of neutral wording and also English expression. I know of many Anglicans who do not agree with or support the ordination of women to the priesthood but this does not therefore suggest, as you seem to think, that they totally "reject the ministry" of ordained women. Your phrasing is too black and white and also confuses "ministry" with "ordination" when they are not the same. The recent IP editor's comments and edits on the PEV article also make good common sense to me. It should also be noted that arguments for "long-standing wording" don't really carry that much weight unless there has been a consensus process. Any editor is entitled to edit articles in order to improve both their style and phrasing and, especially, on policy and MoS issues. I notice that you have been doing a lot of this yourself lately. Afterwriting (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points well made, Afterwriting. I will be happy to concede on this matter. So long as we're not writing "women priests"! ;P DBD 17:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move discussion requested

It is very unfortunate that User:Fastifex did not have the courtesy to seek a consensus before moving this article to a contentious disambiguation page at Diocese of London. If any other editors have an opinion on this move then I invite you to discuss it and express your thoughts on whether the move should be retained or reverted. Afterwriting (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to reverse it, because the change was so great and there was no discussion. There is no possible confusion that couldn't be solved with a hat note, and this kind of change has been tried on before, and has always been contentious and been reversed. We are now in a situation where some Anglican dioceses are named in different ways to others, which is regretable. DDStretch (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This change of title/move has led to a real confusion when looking at the history of what has been one continuous diocese although it has been through changes of jurisdiction, Catholic and Anglican. Reversion is the best thing, I think, since it has not been discussed.Doug (at Wiki) 00:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the move, seems pretty clear there wasn't a consensus for it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While consistency is sometimes helpful — such as all Anglican dioceses being at Anglican Diocese of X — it isn't a necessity, and can be misleading, especially in the case of certain Church of England sees which have been in continuous existence since before the concept of 'Anglican' existed (i.e. before the C of E became fully independent). I am pretty certain there is no danger of ambiguity with the RC Archdiocese of Westminster, although perhaps a case could be made for ambiguity with the RC diocese in Ontario. I suspect we would conclude that the British See is the primary usage; and we seem to consistently name RC dioceses as Roman Catholic (Archd/D)iocese of Y anyway. DBD 16:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deaneries

Various deaneries in the Edmonton Episcopal Area have been merged. E.g., there are no longer West Barnet and Central Barnet Deaneries but a Barnet (London) Deanery (to be distinguished from the Barnet deanery which belongs to the Diocese of St Albans). 89.242.93.255 (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]