Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Auxerre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Diocese of Auxerre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move[edit]

This article should not have been moved without discussion, especially as it has been recently edited.Prior to doing article assessments for Category Former Roman Catholic dioceses in France articles, the majority of article titles were "Ancient Diocese of Fooxxxxx". Now there are a mixture of titles, some with Roman Catholic and some with "Ancient Diocese".

I would like to recommend consistent articles of "Roman Catholic Ancient Diocese of xxxxx" to clarify that these are defunct dioceses, and to keep them into a separate group. Without the word "Ancient" most Wikipedia readers will not be able to identify if the diocese is current functioning without reading deeper into the article. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. What was the rationale for the move? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St Optatus[edit]

I doubt that St Optatus of Auxerre (Roman Martyrology Aug. 31) is the same person as St Optatus of Numidia (feast June 4). But someone thought so, or at least put the link in. Any reason it should not be delinked?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]