Talk:Archbishop of Canterbury

Archbishop of Canterbury
I don't see how this can be considered as a word. This function is important, of course, but so are King of England, roi de France, recteur de la Mosquée de Paris or président de la Conférence des évêques de France. You can build all these titles from their components and use them correctly without knowing them, and you are able to understand them without a definition, even if you might not be able to understand the details of their missions (but that's encyclopedic stuff described by Wikipedia). On the other hand, there would be no reason to exclude Commander of the faithful: this is a title you cannot understand without a definition. Lmaltier 20:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with that. It is not immediately obvious that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the title of the person who heads the Church for all of England. bd2412 T 22:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are many things that I don't know about many real world things referred to by proper nouns. We permit but a few specific types of proper nouns - and grudgingly at that. This is not one of them AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We permit, or should permit, all proper nouns, but only when they can be considered as words (first sentence of CFI).
 * It's not immediately obvious that Winston Churchill was a prime minister. This is not a reason to include Winston Churchill in a language dictionary, as this name is composed of two independent words, and is not a single word, even in the linguistic sense of word. I feel this is the same kind of case. Lmaltier 05:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for those reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To make what I think clearer, assume that, for any reason, the head of the Church of England is permanently transferred to the bishop of, let's say, Liverpool. Will this bishop be called archbishop of Canterbury? Of course not. Will the archbishop of Canterbury still be called archbishop of Canterbury? Of course. As you can see, the definition in the page is a very bad definition. Actually, it's not a definition at all, it's only a very important encyclopedic detail relating to this archbishop. Lmaltier 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps our definition of archbishop: should make it clearer that people with this title in the Church of England are relatively far more senior than holders of the same title in the Roman Catholic church (e.g. the Archbishoprics of Canterbury (most important Anglican worldwide) and Liverpool (third most important Catholic in England and Wales) are very different offices. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have chosen Archbishop of York rather than bishop of Liverpool. But this does not change anything to the reasoning. Lmaltier 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments put forth by Lmaltier and DCDuring. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)