Talk:List of 13th-century religious leaders

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to merge.

Merger proposal

I propose that these lists be be merged.

• Merge List of religious leaders in 1203 into List of 13th-century religious leaders
• Merge List of religious leaders in 1220 into List of 13th-century religious leaders

All of the content in these can be (and already is) contained in the destination with much less total text. In fact the destination is barely any longer than the longest sub-page; yet the destination has all the years of the sub-page. This has already been done with the 20th- and 21st-century lists of religious leaders. There are three important reasons to do this.

1. This page can be better maintained with less work. Since religious leaders typically change infrequently (less often than political leaders) it is very difficult to maintain each sub-page, and they are not maintained. (At best) when a leader dies the death date is put in a succeeding leader is added. Editors should go back and change the 10 or 20 year pages since the leader came to office from "Pope Joe, Bishop of Klingon (1995–present)" to "1995–2013", but no one ever does this.

2. More content can be maintained with more completeness and with less or the same amount of work. Even in this last 12 year period (it is typically worse for 20th-century religious leaders) the list get longer over time as more religions and sub-groups are added from year to year. Again, no one wants to go back and add leaders for every year since the groups started. Groups are added to the current year and that is it. I personal might have done all the back creation that have ever been done for these 13 pages.

3 A system of religious leaders by century allows finding leaders even when only the century (but not the years) that the leader served. If I want to find the name of Pope John Paul I I can find it much faster on List of 20th-century religious leaders than on List of religious leaders in 1978. tahc ^chat 05:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I might hesitantly support this as this is a very early era. Although List of state leaders in 1203 exist and isn't merged to anything.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support unhesitatingly. A century list is more natural than a list for one or two years with no reason indicated why those years are more important than all the other years of the century. Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

1220 (and others)

So what do we do with all the other people in the 1220 list? Just leave them all deleted? That was a massive amount of interesting and valuable info. Even as a staunch deletionist myself, that is a bit shocking. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly "List of 13th-century religious leaders" is no better an idea than "List of religious leaders in 1220". If anything it seems sillier and less useful. Srnec (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Go to the history of the 1220 list and paste what you like to User:Adam Bishop/List of religious leaders in 1220.

As I said, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. tahc ^chat 03:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

But it is you who decided that this was an indiscriminate collection of information. You haven't even demonstrated how this list is indiscriminate. "Indiscriminate" does not mean "not useful to me personally". In fact, I would say it's specificity makes it entirely discriminate. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, I could agree that some of the info in the list was indiscriminate, and we could come up with a threshold for who to include (every single parish priest is certainly not necessary, I imagine). But I don't see how the entire list is indiscriminate. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Few people have ever added anyone to any of these lists-- unless that person was the top leader to their own denomination (or religion). So to me, that seem like the obvious level to go with... especially since not even that has been completed for modern times.

Even if we want people to be able to look up the bishops of Bethlehem for the 13th-century (and we were doing all the more important titles of the more recent centuries first) it seems better to me to list that information on the page for Titular see of Bethlehem than on list of 13th-century religious leaders.tahc ^chat 01:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"Recent" does not equal "more important". And you are free to add this information to any year - why not a "List of religious leaders in 1892"? Why not 892? No one has done it yet, but why not encourage it? There could be a list like this for every year. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The year involved is not my primary objection, so your focus on 1220 seems strange in more than one way. tahc ^chat 20:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)