Talk:Anglican religious order

message: Overall, a very clear and helpful article.  One question, though; the article states that "Religious communities are divided into orders proper, in which members take solemn vows and congregations, whose members take simple vows."  Where is this distinction made?  The Episcopal Church in the USA makes a rather different distinction, as the article suggests; I'm not aware that canon law in the British Isles makes any such definition either.  It's in the US and UK that most of these orders have their origin.  Is the simple/solemn vows idea, which is certainly in Roman Catholic canon law, also part of current Anglican tradition?
86.135.163.182 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Canada from the line "In the United States and Canada, the founding of Anglican religious orders began in 1842" since Canada did not exist as a country at that time. Also, there is no discussion of the first order founded in Canada, so there is no reason to discuss the US and Canada collectively here. 156.34.38.167 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: We have eight pictures in the gallery as I write this, and they are all of female orders. It would be nice to have a couple pictures from male orders, if anyone has any. QVanillaQ (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I propose that Sisterhoods (Modern Anglican) be merged into Anglican religious order. Certainly qualifies under 'overlap' and probably 'duplicate' (see WP:Merge). Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The merger was executed on 29 November 2012. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 20:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Why is the title in the singular (Anglican religious order) when it discusses a number of Anglican religious orders? Shouldn't the article be WP:moved to Anglican religious orders ie plural? Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I will answer your question to further explain the decision below.  The reason to use the singular title in this case hinges on Wikipedia's usage of "class" of subjects, which is described here.  In the article on the horse, for example, a number of horse breeds/species are discussed; however, this does not fall into Wikipedia's own definition and usage of the term "class", so the article is not titled "Horses".  I will be glad to answer any other questions you have on this.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  21:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: A discussion is taking place at Talk:Nun#Rename article "Nun and religious sister" ? whether to rename this article "Nun and religious sister", since religious sisters have no article of their own and may not want to be called nuns. Religious sisters are already a major topic in the article. Jzsj (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming "Nun" article 

message: I can see no good reason for the failure to follow normal English usage. There is a Wikipedia article entitled Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion. It would be good to have some consistency?ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title already follows "normal English usage". It also follows standard Wikipedia policy (see WP:SINGULAR). To change it would be incorrect and ungrammatical. The "former" article which you mention, is differently named because it is in the expanded list format, and therefore takes the plural form.Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restarting plea for plural OrderS title