Although the history went back to 2002 the edits before 13 August 2008 were only alterations to redirects (and of no relevance as far a copyright were concerned). But the other article has been an article since its creation at 00:07 on 31 December 2005. As it was the larger of the two articles and had a longer history (as an article) it made sense to keep that history with the new merged article. --
PBS (
talk)
02:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Whatever you think - I tried to work out which it should be from the articles on the
University of Dublin and
Trinity College, Dublin, but the issue seems rather confused. I only plumped for the latter because the TCD article says "The role of Chancellor was also a College role". I also thought it more likely that the eighteenth century Chancellors, for example, would have been called "of TCD" rather than "of the U of D".
Opera hat (
talk)
13:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
You're right, many people find it confusing, even in Dublin, and you do see "Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin" as well as "Chancellor of the University of Dublin", but I'm sure the second is the more correct, and I've just checked and found that it has about three times as many Google hits, too. So I'll move the list, as you don't mind and have left it to me.
Strawless (
talk)
13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I thought it was rather odd for there to be no article listing the Chancellors! Obviously I didn't look hard enough. :) Thanks for doing the merge etc.
Opera hat (
talk)
13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I missed that previous one. It just seems the groupings then are a little muddled: some are by profession, some are by a general notability category. I may try re-arranging them, but my biog knowledge on most of them is a little skant
Apollo Crua (
talk)
11:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you for notifying me. I have started this new page on a red link from
Saoi, which supported my thought that
Toscaireacht was notable.
Aosdána is not "a club", as suggested, but a learned body of Irish artists across all creative disciplines who have created a significant body of work, and it can be compared to the
Royal Academy. If this page ought to be speedily deleted, then perhaps the same arguments may apply to
Saoi, who are senior members of
Aosdána, but that also seems to me to be a notable subject. Perhaps no separate article for Toscaireacht is needed, and in that case I would suggest a merge to
Aosdána would be more constructive, with a redirect to
Aosdána.
Strawless (
talk)
21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I can't say I mind that, but as requested by Morbidthoughts I've added several "third-party references about Toscaireacht in the article to demonstrate its significance or importance", with the extra info they brought in. Shall I leave it for someone else to do the merge?
Strawless (
talk)
22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Please provide third-party references about Toscaireacht in the article to demonstrate its significance or importance to prevent it being deleted. Right now it's not clear how the Toscaireacht is important beyond that they are an administrative subgroup.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
21:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I've never yet written an interesting hook. So long as they're coherent, they usually get accepted. So I went for a summary of the lead. Can't argue with that!
Angus McLellan(Talk)00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)reply
On
4 December,
2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Godkin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
No problem - I was going to correct it myself, but thought that if it was just a copy-paste error, it might be best for it to be checked properly. Excellent article!
Shimgray |
talk |
18:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)reply
On
17 December,
2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles D'Arcy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all
RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to
Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check
WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc.
flaminglawyerc07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
DYK for William Jowett
On
January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Jowett, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
Yes I do remember your suggestion at
Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Kilmore, and having thought about it, I have to agree with you. Its better to have the list of bishops in the diocese article. I'm wondering whether your suggestion could be extended for the current Church of Ireland bishops. None of them are particulary long and the list of those bishops could easily be merged to the diocese article. At present some them have seperate articles for dioceses and bishops. Other ones have the bishop redirected to the diocese article, and visa-versa. With the Roman Catholic articles they have the lists of bishops in the diocese article. The same could be done for the Church of Ireland dioceses/bishops.
Scrivener-uki (
talk)
08:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Speaking only for myself, I have become a little more torn in my views in the past few days, but I broadly agree with what you say for now. As I said at
Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Kilmore, I think there's a case for a separate List of bishops of... page where the diocese page gets long. But here's another point which could favour that. It's important that the dioceses and hierarchy of the Church of Ireland are the successors of the pre-Reformation Catholic church in Ireland, just as with the
Church of England and the
Church in Wales in their own countries; or else, if you disagree, that they believe they are. This can make it a knotty problem how best to deal with the lists of bishops here at Wikipedia. All of the Anglican churches of the British Isles understandably (and in my view correctly) take their lists of bishops back to the pre-Reformation origins of a diocese, if it has pre-Reformation origins. However, some of our Wikipedia articles to do with the present-day Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland claim the same pre-Reformation bishops in their own lists of bishops. In my recent edits to
Bishop of Kildare, I integrated the two post-Reformation lists with the pre-Reformation list, up to the point where the dioceses (CoI and RC) were united with others, moving a post-Reformation Anglican list in from
Diocese of Meath and Kildare. It may be that in the long run this will prove to be the least contentious approach to the mismatch of the perceptions of the two churches. If so, then having a separate list of Bishops (probably calledList of bishops of... comes back as an option with more value than just the question of space on the page, but it may not be an option which will work in every case, as things can get so complicated in places. Kildare is a straightforward case.
Another editor who is very active on these Church of Ireland articles is Bashereyre, and his view may be different, so I'll copy this discussion so far to his talk page.
Strawless(talk)16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Indeed, I guessed that was your view. If we wanted to raise this general question formally, I suppose
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland is the best place, as using
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism would more or less cut those of a more RC persuasion out of the loop, but the danger is that a consensus could develop at WikiProject Ireland of people with only a marginal interest in such pages. As the picture is so various, I think we had better go on as we are for now and discuss any suggested moves or mergers ad hoc as they arise, in the regular way.
How strange. I started it from a "red link" in the template for Anglican cathedrals, so it seemed clear that it didn't exist. No harm done, we shall need to merge the two.
Strawless(talk)12:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Hello. I am not Xn4, but I am Xn4's partner and we share home computers. I am surprised that no one thought to ask me before blocking my account. I have never seen any suggestion that Wikipedia allows only one account per household.
Strawless(talk)20:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by
WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the
Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list
here