Roman Catholic Diocese of Eichstätt is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bavaria 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.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Moved as non-controversial. Hopefully the Diocese/Bishopric distinction is OK — I'm not familiar with the matter.
Duja11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article seems to be mostly about the former state, rather than the present-day diocese. The state is a Bishopric, not a Diocese. What's the deal here, exactly?
john k12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Two deals: one clear (correct Eichstätt vs. incorrect Eichstädt), and one unclear (diocese vs. bishopric). The article is neither here nor there about the topic (currently diocese, previously bishopric AFAICT). I moved it judging that Chl is knowledgeable on the subject, and the spelling was wrong anyway;
Duja13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
We really ought to have an article called
Diocese of Eichstätt about the history of the Diocese from its establishment to the present day, and an article called
Bishopric of Eichstätt about the ecclesiastical principality within the Holy Roman Empire (which never, of course, had the same boundaries as the diocese). This should be our general practice with all ecclesiastical principalities. Unfortunately, it seems to be done only rarely.
john k15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
We could also, arguably, have an article on the
Principality of Eichstätt, which was what the bishopric was known as after it was secularized and given to the former Grand Duke of Tuscany (along with the Archbishopric, now Duchy, of Salzburg, and some other ecclesiastical territories). This was, however, extremely short-lived. It is rather awkward, though, for an article on a Roman Catholic diocese to list the secular Prince of Eichstätt, but not the Prince-Bishops who preceded him. I'm not sure how that came about, exactly.
john k15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
1) Concerning a split into an article on the church subdivision and an article on the state: Yes, this would ultimately be the best way to do it -- the German Wikipedia is already doing it (see
de:Bistum Eichstätt and
de:Hochstift Eichstätt). The reason why it is currently done rarely is because the articles on former prince-bishoprics are pretty short or don't exist at all yet, and so splitting them up would create many stubs. Even where we have an article, it often isn't much more than the list of bishops, which would mostly be the same for both articles, and should probably ultimately be at "List of bishops of X".
2) Concerning diocese/bishopric: I suggested "diocese" for this article because it seems to be the term used for current subdivisions of the Catholic church, under the naming convention that current usage prevails. But as far as I can tell there is no consistent difference in meaning between "bishopric" and "diocese". According to Merriam-Webster's, they are the same
[1]. Prince-bishoprics always seem to be called "bishoprics", but, at least in historical contexts, the term bishopric is also routinely used for dioceses that were not prince-bishoprics. So it is confusing, and the question would arise how to name articles that are exlusively on political states ruled by bishops.
What is weird is that the list of Prince-Bishops has been removed, but poor old Archduke Ferdinand is still listed. That is awkward and strange.
john k23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Fixed
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
08:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) I've split and lengthened the diocesan article, including a list of bishops. Corrected the listing of bishops. Now the folks doing the HRE stuff can do their thing. Hopefully not too many more of these out there.reply
Roman Catholic Diocese of Eichstätt is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bavaria 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.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Moved as non-controversial. Hopefully the Diocese/Bishopric distinction is OK — I'm not familiar with the matter.
Duja11:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article seems to be mostly about the former state, rather than the present-day diocese. The state is a Bishopric, not a Diocese. What's the deal here, exactly?
john k12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Two deals: one clear (correct Eichstätt vs. incorrect Eichstädt), and one unclear (diocese vs. bishopric). The article is neither here nor there about the topic (currently diocese, previously bishopric AFAICT). I moved it judging that Chl is knowledgeable on the subject, and the spelling was wrong anyway;
Duja13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
We really ought to have an article called
Diocese of Eichstätt about the history of the Diocese from its establishment to the present day, and an article called
Bishopric of Eichstätt about the ecclesiastical principality within the Holy Roman Empire (which never, of course, had the same boundaries as the diocese). This should be our general practice with all ecclesiastical principalities. Unfortunately, it seems to be done only rarely.
john k15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
We could also, arguably, have an article on the
Principality of Eichstätt, which was what the bishopric was known as after it was secularized and given to the former Grand Duke of Tuscany (along with the Archbishopric, now Duchy, of Salzburg, and some other ecclesiastical territories). This was, however, extremely short-lived. It is rather awkward, though, for an article on a Roman Catholic diocese to list the secular Prince of Eichstätt, but not the Prince-Bishops who preceded him. I'm not sure how that came about, exactly.
john k15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply
1) Concerning a split into an article on the church subdivision and an article on the state: Yes, this would ultimately be the best way to do it -- the German Wikipedia is already doing it (see
de:Bistum Eichstätt and
de:Hochstift Eichstätt). The reason why it is currently done rarely is because the articles on former prince-bishoprics are pretty short or don't exist at all yet, and so splitting them up would create many stubs. Even where we have an article, it often isn't much more than the list of bishops, which would mostly be the same for both articles, and should probably ultimately be at "List of bishops of X".
2) Concerning diocese/bishopric: I suggested "diocese" for this article because it seems to be the term used for current subdivisions of the Catholic church, under the naming convention that current usage prevails. But as far as I can tell there is no consistent difference in meaning between "bishopric" and "diocese". According to Merriam-Webster's, they are the same
[1]. Prince-bishoprics always seem to be called "bishoprics", but, at least in historical contexts, the term bishopric is also routinely used for dioceses that were not prince-bishoprics. So it is confusing, and the question would arise how to name articles that are exlusively on political states ruled by bishops.
What is weird is that the list of Prince-Bishops has been removed, but poor old Archduke Ferdinand is still listed. That is awkward and strange.
john k23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Fixed
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
08:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) I've split and lengthened the diocesan article, including a list of bishops. Corrected the listing of bishops. Now the folks doing the HRE stuff can do their thing. Hopefully not too many more of these out there.reply