Talk:Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Is 1954 the last time Bishops were consecrated in the US?

Is 1954 the last time Bishops were consecrated in the US?

There is nothing to indicate this is only a partial list. Nor is there any indication where the names of more recently consecrated Bishops can be found. Ileanadu (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress. I used to put an "under construction" template at the end, but some bot kept deleting it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size split?

Support split - Article is over 300 kB, and will more than likely only get worse over time. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know. It's no longer than the equivalent article about Episcopal bishops, which seems to be getting along just fine. There's an advantage to having it all in one place, given the format of cross-referencing the numbers, and no real disadvantage to it. I'd keep it as is. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coemgenus, Firstly great article, comprehensive, well laid out and nice to have the pictures anchored near to the relevant entries, top work. I support your stance on this and would like to offer some help, I can optimise the tables and save somewhere between 9.5%-12% based on a limited test, all data, formats etc. will remain as is, I will not touch the pictures and their placements at all. I also propose to change the column ref "Date" to "Year".
For your consideration and kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be great! I'm no expert on takes, so I'm glad for all the help I can get. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coemgenus, all done, I saved within my estimate, was hoping for more, however I tried to keep the "shortlinks" that were amended with the same format so editors can easily copy etc. More than happy to help. regards.The Original Filfi (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like how much space you saved, but the problem is that all of the links for dioceses now go to redirects or disambiguations. Diocese of Pittsburgh, for example, leads not to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, but to a disambiguation page directing the reader to one of four choices. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry about that, I wrote a tool to check that the links existed, they did but I forgot about dab pages, I have added back normal links and will ponder a bit and may revisit if my brain can work out another saving.Regards.The Original Filfi (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I appreciate that you're trying to help get this article down to a more manageable size. Thanks again. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I am only spit balling here, I know DAB's are no use at all, however, do redirects to the correct page worry you? If we take entry 1379 that links to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and deliberately set up a redirect from a new page called e.g. RCDoA that directly re-directs to Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany would this be ok. I picked RCDoA as it is very unlikely in that format to conflict with any other entries with the mix of upper and lower case, this amendment, which is no where near the largest of its type, would save 297 characters (old 11x32=352 vs SB proposed 11x5=55, 352-55=297). I can dummy up some short links and test that they exist or not using my link tool, and try to ensure that they all are in a very similar format for editors ease. If ok, I will dummy and test and then post here for your review. Your thoughts?The Original Filfi (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a bad idea. It makes the source code unreadable. It creates a maintenance nightmare for people who will come afterward: what do we tell them, you must create new redirects for new dioceses erected? Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizium23, more SB, we could add an editors note that could assist in the source code readability and replication, we could set a lower limit, say sees with less than 3 entries are not shortlinked, which would obviously include any "new" ones.Thoughts.The Original Filfi (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Auxiliary Bishops, 1 article written, asking for 2 new articles

Greetings, On September 8, 2015,

Robert Barron (bishop) was ordained as an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels by Archbishop José H. Gomez
.

<ref name="Bishop Barron">{{cite web|url=http://www.angelusnews.com/news/local/three-new-auxiliary-bishops-ordained-for-the-archdiocese-of-los-angeles-8851/|website=Angelus News|title=Auxiliary Bishop Barron|accessdate=9 September 2015}}</ref>

I added Requested Articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Religion, Catholic, People section:

I also posted this section at the Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles page.

Articles for Bishops Brennan and O'Connell are red links, and need to be written. Asking for help from other (expert) editors to write these new articles.

Lastly, I was not physically present at the ceremony, so I do not know if it makes a difference in the Sequence number of the exact order for these three aux. bishops since it is the same date. Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added them. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop McCarrick

How should Archbishop McCarrick's line appear? My thinking is no red on his line, but a footnote that he was created Cardinal and later resigned his position. I did not want to make this change without opening a discussion. 24.30.85.80 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe a small red splash on his number(887) along with the footnote just as long as the whole line is not red. According to the conversation I had today with the priests, he still is an archbishop emeritus Roberto221 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, are you able to make this edit? I am less skilled at the visual aspects of the page :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.85.80 (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Done Roberto221 (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I noticed that the latest section is lacking in pictures at the moment. Not sure what images are permitted to be posted. Also, I would love if someone could remove Theodore McCarrick's picture found earlier on the page. It makes me a bit ill every time I scroll past it. Don't want to dump responsibilities on anyone else but I am not familiar with the fair use laws. 47.36.33.28 (talk)

Gordon Bennett

Why is

Gordon Bennett (bishop) not in the historical register? 24.30.85.80 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Oversight, I guess. Add him. Hopefully there aren't any others.

Roberto221 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

assuming this should be an insert in the table, rather than renumbering 300 bishops + consecrators? Thnx Catholicdude112 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should really renumber, as tedious as that sounds. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet that I missed him when I created the list because he was, by then, in Jamaica. He shoudl certainly be on the list though, and I hope there are no others. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Coemgenus:, though I would be not renumber the bishops who were consecrated outside of the US, like #'s 1180a, 1293a, 1313a, 1324a, 1361a, 1365a, 1389a. I would leave those blank. Roberto221 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. @Coemgenus: I have done a good bit of cross-checking auxiliaries (against diocesan articles) over the past couple weeks and haven't noted any other discrepancies so far Catholicdude112 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Catholicdude112: Good Job, especially on the research!!! I renamed his page as "Gordon Dunlap Bennett" instead of "Gordon Bennett (bishop)", and made changes to all the pages with his name. Roberto221 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roberto221, I agree about the bishops consecrated elsewhere. No need to change those. We can update a bit at a time. I might have some time this week to jump in on it. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coemgenus: I went through and knocked out the changes. I adjusted the bishops consecrated elsewhere as well just to keep the same order, but there are only a few if you want to go in a different direction Catholicdude112 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_list_of_the_Catholic_bishops_of_the_United_States&oldid=1202729348"