Talk:Episcopal Church in Minnesota

message: Since there's discussion about the article title, I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism to see if there is a standard across the project for articles on dioceses. The thread is titled #Names of dioceses, revisted. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title referred to project 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support as proposer. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Names used in the Anglican Communion, particularly in the United States, are not necessarily the same as in the Roman tradition. Jonathunder (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

text: *By the same token, a !vote that is explicitly arguing against standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not be weighed heavily in determining the outcome of a Wikipedia process, should it? While you may work for the organization, the Wikipedia page is not "yours." WP:COI: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest." Dekimasuよ! 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "Roman Catholic usage" - it is universal usage! All dioceses are named [Church] Diocese of [Place], Roman Catholic or not. If we are going to change one article then we are going to have to change the naming convention and that will require a wider and more centralized discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not universal (though it undoubtedly once was), as this case clearly shows. And if the naming convention is in error then it should be changed. But I object also to the notion that our convention is more important. I think a case needs to be made for why WP ought to be deciding matters against the face of the real world it purports to report on. Our conventions also ought not to be viewed as rigid laws, binding our content. The conventions can have (and require) greater flexibility than that, and so do our editing bodies that make such decisions. Let it be discussed. Evensteven (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Please see comment in discussion below for reason for change. Evensteven (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the historical name and its uses. But organizations sometimes change names, and the new names' common use follows predictably while the old drops off. It's certainly an arguable point about how far along the process is here, but the ngram also only covers as far as 2008, finding no more recent references to either. Results do depend where and how one is looking. Note C.Fred's quite different Google News search results above. Recognizability and consistency always depend on context, not entirely straightforward here. Evensteven (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey