Talk:Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich

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 Low-importance).

Name[edit]

Is there any reason why this page isn't at Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich? I'll move it unless there's any good reason to have it here at all - that does appear to be his title, NOT Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury. TSP 04:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is quite correct that at present the diocese (and the title of the bishop) is so styled.

My only comments in this respect would be that the current title is consistent as long as the bishop's seat is located at Bury St Edmunds (and there is no co-cathedral at Ipswich), also it is not inconceivable (considering the history of the organisation of the Church of England) that at some point the diocese may split between Ipswich and St Edmundsbury.

Apart from that I have no problem with this. --JohnArmagh 16:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a possible title for the post; but it doesn't seem consistent to have the page here unless we also moved Bishop of Bath and Wells to Bishop of Wells and Bishop of Swansea and Brecon to Bishop of Brecon. I recently moved Bishop of Ripon to Bishop of Ripon and Leeds in reflection of the name change in 1999.

True, it might need moving again some day; but there's no harm in that. TSP 11:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that these inconsistencies should be addressed. When I created the Edmundsbury page it was with a heading which was against the convention set in the pre-existing pages you cite, and I may have been wrong in so doing, though my motive was purely to future-proof the page for as long as there was an active cathedral there. That said, I have no objection to your way forward. --JohnArmagh 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)