Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/WP:BISHOP revision

WP:BISHOP revision

I propose revising naming conventions for bishops and archbishops:

Preparatory reading

Considerations

Consistency
Recognisability
Official names
Common names
Ambiguity
NPOV

Involved parties

Comments

Use of denominational dab phrase: "Common Name (Anglican bishop)"
Use of title as dab phrase: "Common Name (Bishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (bishop of Nonsuch)"

Proposals

Proposal 0: the status quo

(Implied: Use "Common Name" {per WP:COMMONNAME.})
If ambiguous, use paranthetical dab phrase "Common Name (bishop)". ("bishop" in the sense of the order and therefore including archbishops.)
If two or more (arch)bishops have the same common name, dab by current or most recent (or, in practice, most senior) see "Common Name (archbishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (bishop of Otherwhere)." (Customarily and incorrectly uncapitalised.)
If two or more bishops of the same common name held the same most recent or most senior see, then "Common Name (died 1066)".
Bishops of only one name must not be dab'd with only (bishop); if two one-named bishops of the same see are generally distinguished by Roman numerals, they should be dab'd by such.

Proposal 1:

Use "Common Name" (per WP:COMMONNAME.)
If ambiguous, use paranthetical dab phrase "Common Name (bishop)". ("bishop" in the sense of the order and therefore including archbishops.)
If two or more (arch)bishops have the same common name, dab by current, most recent or most senior see "Common Name (Archbishop of Nonsuch)" vs "Common Name (Bishop of Otherwhere)." (Properly capitalised as episcopal titles; avoiding use of disambiguation by denomination since sees are better recognised.) DBD 16:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If two or more bishops of the same common name held the same most recent or most senior see, then "Common Name (Bishop of Place, died 1066)", or (if no year is known for one of them) "Common Name (12th-century Bishop of Here)", or "Common Name II (Bishop of There)" (if both were active in the same century and not dab-able by years). DBD 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1 examples

Distinguish Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of York) and Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of Canterbury) – both were Archbishop of York, but the latter translated to the senior see of Canterbury; a hatnote is included on the former article.
Distinguish Eanbald (died 796) and Eanbald (floruit 798) – both Archbishops of York in succession at the turn of the 9th century.
St Wilfrid is the clear primary topic; his successor at York would be at Wilfrid (8th-century bishop) or Wilfrid the Younger.
Two Bishops of Worcester called Wilfrith (I & II): Wilfrith (Bishop of Worcester, floruit 718) and Wilfrith (Bishop of Worcester, floruit 928).
James Grant (Scottish bishop) would be James Grant (Vicar Apostolic of the Lowland District) and James Grant (Australian bishop) James Grant (Coadjutor Bishop of Melbourne).
John McIntyre (Archbishop of Birmingham) and John McIntyre (Bishop of Gippsland).

Discussion of proposals

I propose (proposal 1, point 3) that all episcopal titles be properly capitalised, since in that phrase we do not mean that this person was "a bishop, of Wherever", but that they hold/held the specific title "Bishop of Wherever. DBD 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see one potential drawback to this proposal, although it is also admittedly a problem present in the existing guidelines. There are, at least for the Catholic and Orthodox churches (the latter of whom should probably also be notified) some problems regarding really early bishoporics where more than one individual bishop of a diocese are known to history by the same name. I have seen in some reference books on saints entries such as "Foo I of Fooville" and "Foo II of Fooville" and whatever. How would these changes deal with such circumstances? John Carter (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to my proposal to cover that eventuality. I have essentially formulated what seems already to happen in practice. DBD 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of those saints "Whoever II of Over There" would have that as their common name. DBD 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose making changes to Naming conventions (clergy) guidelines. I don't see any problem with Proposal 1, points 1 and 2 since they are the same with Proposal 0, but Proposal 1, point 3 is not a natural progression of points 1 and 2, and Proposal 1, point 4 has too many options. Although the current guidelines are not perfect they have remained in place for many years and should stay as they are. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal lacks one detail: how to cater for two bishops of the same name in the same diocese but from different denominations. Following the Reformation in Ireland, many dioceses had parallel successions - 1 for the RC Church and 1 for the Church of Ireland. It's possible therefore that over the centuries, two Irishmen occupied the same see but in different denominations. So we'd need "Common Name (Bishop of Here, Denomination Foo)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or (Church of Ireland Bishop of There) and (Roman Catholic Bishop of There)? DBD 09:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I suppose there's the outside possibility that we'd end up with a (United Church of England and Ireland Bishop of There) which is becoming a bit ridiculous... DBD 09:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for complicated options to distinguish one bishop from another with the same name and title. The current guidelines simply has their death year in brackets: e.g. Alexander de Kininmund (died 1380) and Alexander de Kininmund (died 1344), both bishops of Aberdeen. It is very unlikely, if at all, with two bishops with the same title and death year. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scrivener, I'd like to know what you mean by "point 3 is not a natural progression". That would help me prepare a Proposal 2. DBD 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the disambiguation phrase in parentheses should normally be in lowercase, unless it is a proper noun (like a book title) that would appear capitalized even in running text (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Format. The progression I see is (1) Common Name, (2) Common Name (bishop), (3) Common Name (bishop of Wherever) or Common Name (archbishop of Wherever). With number 3, I see them as a bishop/archbishop of Wherever, and not the Bishop/Archbishop of Wherever. We don't see people in the peerage with their title in parentheses: e.g. Thomas Howard (3rd Duke of Norfolk) but with their title after a comma e.g. Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. So the progression with bishops is either Common Name (bishop of Wherever) / Common Name (archbishop of Wherever), or Common Name, Bishop of Wherever / Common Name, Archbishop of Wherever. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that Bishop of Somewhere should always appear capitalised in prose. DBD 11:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the names of articles are not examples of "prose" and they are not about someone holding a specific position ("Bishop of Somewhere") but about what and where they are or were. So the "of Somewhere" part of the article name is the disambiguation part. It is the same principle as disambiguation between two people with the same name and same work (especially in the same country), i.e. between Jesus (carpenter of Nazareth) and Jesus (carpenter of Jerusalem). Afterwriting (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So the "bishop of" is surplus to requirements? So we should rather distinguish Matthew Parker (York) from Matthew Parker (Canterbury). DBD 08:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging @Anglicanus, Bashereyre, Laurel Lodged, Scrivener-uki, and Tassedethe: in hopes we could get moving again. DBD 17:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Why is it "Eanbald (died 796) and Eanbald (floruit 798)" and not "Eanbald (Archbishop of York, died 796) and Eanbald (Archbishop of York, floruit 798)"? Doesn't the former violate proposal 1.4 ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Proposal 1, especially the change from the form "Liutbert (archbishop of Mainz)" to the form "Lyfing (Archbishop of Canterbury)", because the title is a proper name that is usually capitalised. However, where just "archbishop" or "bishop" are used to disambiguate, it is right to use lower case because it's a generic noun, not a title. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]