 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Image copyright problem with Image:BishopPates.jpg edit
The image Image:BishopPates.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge edit
- seems sensible; both are short, and this entirely comprehends the other, which also has some refs. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with merging in partibus infidelium into this article as historical perspective. The term was replaced by titular see in 1882, see ref at http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/dioc-tit.htm. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Unexplained tag edit
There was a merge tag here, post-dating the proposal above. There was no explanation for it, here or in the edit summary, so I've removed it.
I don't see any justification anyway; not all titular bishops have sees, and not all titular sees have bishops. Also, what little overlap I could see in the articles I've tried to fix. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)