This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Prince Bishops article is rather bare, and I can't see a reason why we should need to have a separate article from this one (with fewer links and details). It also gives unnecessary confusion between Prince Bishop and Prince Bishops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.13.181 ( talk • contribs) on 23 March 2007.
I have altered the merge tags to give a preferred direction for the merge. I note also that they were placed back in March 2006 and there has not been much interest. In my opinion Prince Bishops of Durham should be merged to Bishop of Durham as the latter is the ongoing article and the former is part of the history of the latter. -- Bduke 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Where on earth has the list of bishops gone? There's a reference to an article which apparently doesn't exist and never has... whoa, and we have a horribly messy edit history too. Ugh. Time to fix this. Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've created this image, which I'll leave up to someone paying attention to these articles, to include in this article. It is based on a drawing accompanying an article by the venerable Fox-Davies on ecclesiastical heraldry, though I had no blazon to work to. Greentubing 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence that said that the Bishop of Durham is the senior-most bishop of the province of York, as it would seem to make more sense that the Archbishop of York would be. I know how these things work, though, and I realize that there may be some obscure technical reason why this might not be the case. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bishop of Durham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a pity that the map has been removed. It was never intended to show the current boundaries. It shows the historic boundaries and I think that is important. It was in the history section. I do not intend to get into an edit war. So I would welcome the views of others here. -- Bduke ( talk) 00:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is Eardulf in the list twice - is this covered in the source? Newystats ( talk) 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Prince Bishops article is rather bare, and I can't see a reason why we should need to have a separate article from this one (with fewer links and details). It also gives unnecessary confusion between Prince Bishop and Prince Bishops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.13.181 ( talk • contribs) on 23 March 2007.
I have altered the merge tags to give a preferred direction for the merge. I note also that they were placed back in March 2006 and there has not been much interest. In my opinion Prince Bishops of Durham should be merged to Bishop of Durham as the latter is the ongoing article and the former is part of the history of the latter. -- Bduke 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Where on earth has the list of bishops gone? There's a reference to an article which apparently doesn't exist and never has... whoa, and we have a horribly messy edit history too. Ugh. Time to fix this. Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've created this image, which I'll leave up to someone paying attention to these articles, to include in this article. It is based on a drawing accompanying an article by the venerable Fox-Davies on ecclesiastical heraldry, though I had no blazon to work to. Greentubing 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence that said that the Bishop of Durham is the senior-most bishop of the province of York, as it would seem to make more sense that the Archbishop of York would be. I know how these things work, though, and I realize that there may be some obscure technical reason why this might not be the case. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bishop of Durham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a pity that the map has been removed. It was never intended to show the current boundaries. It shows the historic boundaries and I think that is important. It was in the history section. I do not intend to get into an edit war. So I would welcome the views of others here. -- Bduke ( talk) 00:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is Eardulf in the list twice - is this covered in the source? Newystats ( talk) 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)