1,136
edits
Changes
m
fixing broken sig (and other minor fixes) Ⓣ
i've seen no evidence that +Gibran was archbishop - all documents i've seen say that he was just bishop of a diocese, and that after his repose the diocese got upgraded to archdiocese and title of bishop to metropolitan. [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]] 02:30, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)
: Googling for his name yields multiple sources referring to him as "archbishop" (including obituaries).[http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22archbishop+gibran%22&btnG=Search] —[[User:ASDamick|{{User<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</sig}}font>]] </sup> 20:20, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)
:: this...is probably best described as 'frustrating' :). a bunch of external sources say 'archbishop', possibly because they are used to archbishops running the church. deanery of new zealand says 'bishop' in its obituary [http://www.antiochian.org.nz/spotlight/Spot99a.html], and archdiocese of aust/nz says 'bishop' in its history of the archdiocese [http://www.antiochian.org.au/archnews.html]. all that said, i'll change it only after this has been verified (either way) on an archdiocesan level. cheers, [[User:Pistevo|Pistevo]] 01:50, 12 Sep 2005 (EDT)
: I gather that means you're going to ask them? That would seem to be the best idea. —[[User:ASDamick|{{User<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</sig}}font>]] </sup> 07:14, 12 Sep 2005 (EDT)
:Dear Deacon Andrew,
:Thank you for asking. The succession box describes +Gibran as a Bishop of a Diocese. His predecessor was neither a bishop, nor in charge of a diocese. His successor was not a bishop but a metropolitan archbishop, and in charged of an archdiocese, not a diocese. In cases where the status of an exarchate, or a diocese, or an archdiocese change, it could appear more appropriate, and cetainly more accurate, to show the variation in status. Hence the change in this article. chrisg 2006-06-08-0127 EAST
:: If the position of the successor is in fact a completely different position from the main subject of the article, then it would seem that listing that person as the successor at all makes no sense. If, however, the position of the successor is similar enough, then it would seem that the standard usage should apply. In any event, the article about the successor makes it clear what position he holds.
:: There are already numerous articles throughout the wiki which include succession boxes in which the successor holds a position whose title is different than the subject, but unless that position is radically different (e.g. a priestly exarch vs. a bishop), the title is not specified in the succession box, but simply in the article pertaining to the successor.
:: The idea of the succession box is simply to show the "before" and "after" for a given position, not the complete details of the holders of that position. I'm reverting the succession box to meet the usual usage. Please try to make your edits conform to the standards established on OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 10:33, June 7, 2006 (CDT)
