Talk:Diocese of Sourozh
Stylistically, it is common in historical and encyclopedic articles to use the name of a bishop without his title once his title has already been introduced. (The same holds true of saints.) This is the OrthodoxWiki standard. It becomes awkward and redundant to use the title every time the name is mentioned. It is not disrespectful to use this common practice in English writing.
Jurisdiction in OrthodoxWiki is a specifically defined term which is appropriate for the use of the Diocese of Sourozh. I'm not going to change it back, of course, but generally, jurisdiction here is defined as any of the following: one of the autocephalous or autonomous churches, the presence of one of those churches in an area with overlapping ecclesiastical territories (the "diaspora"), or one of the various breakaway groups (e.g. Old Calendarists). See Category:Jurisdictions for more information.
Most of the time "Western Europe" is mentioned, it typically does not include the UK. The official United Nations definition of Western Europe, for instance, does not include those nations (cf. Wikipedia:Western Europe).
BTW, it's good to see you here, Maxim. From the style of your edits and comments, I'm guessing you're the anonymous editor with whom I've been working on the Wikipedia article (your IP, at any rate, is the same). I hope you enjoy your time here. OrthodoxWiki is similar to, but not the same as, Wikipedia. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 16:25, June 16, 2006 (CDT)
Of course, etc.
I take the correction re 'jurisdiction'. The small snippet line made it look more blunt than it was. I'm just conscious that (a) there are stavropegic Moscow Patriarchate churches in UK & RI [e.g. the Dublin Church]: these are Moscow jurisdiction; (b) there are non-Moscow Russian churches in UK & NI [e.g. the Belfast one]: these are Russian. I just wanted to pick out Sourozh between these two - so that it didn't tread on the toes of either.
Best, M Maxim 16:56, June 16, 2006 (CDT)
- I wasn't aware of the stavropegic institutions. It may be worth it to mention these in the article. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 17:19, June 16, 2006 (CDT)
Done. Maxim 18:18, June 16, 2006 (CDT)
Dear Dn Damick, I feel a slight chafe of imperialism in the stipulation that the article needs to be 'Commonwealth-ized in usage'. I am not sure what it means for an article to require 'commonwealth-izing'. The article as it stands is British English, conforming (barring typos) to the OED and the Oxford Manual of Style. I believe that the Commonwealth generally communicates in British English. I note also that the Orthodoxwiki requires consistency in the type of English used (e.g. whether British or whatever). It does not stipulate mandatory redaction of an article to conform it to American English spelling and grammatical norms. As ever, Maxim 22:57, June 22, 2006 (CDT)
- Commonwealth usage is precisely the usage of the UK, Australia, Canada, etc. Though it's not yet enshrined in OrthodoxWiki policy, we generally follow the Wikipedia policy of using the English usage peculiar to the location of the article's subject. Thus, for instance, this article would use Commonwealth usage rather than American.