Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Archbishops of Canterbury/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by User:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [1].

List of Archbishops of Canterbury[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Kent, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity iMatthew (talk)

After looking it over, it doesn't exactly meet the FL criteria. It was passed in 2005, and has some issues. First of all, sourcing the headers - not good. The format of the tables is troublesome as well. I'm not sure how reliable some of the sources are, notes should be combined. The current one's article says he was appointed in 2003, and this article says 2002, so some of the facts may not be correct. This list could also better from a history section, and moving the roles into that. It fails C4 of the FLC criteria, as it's not a sortable table, and C6 per the above comment about the format of the tables. - iMatthew (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorcing the headers" - you want a reference for "To the Norman Conquest"?? Apart from an alphabetical sort, which the category does, what would a sortable table sort on? It seems irrelevant here. It could do with some more detail in places, for example on the origin of non-Englishmen (like the current occupant). Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until I changed last night, the footnotes were actually incorporated in the headers, which isn't good style. Otherwise I tend to agree with you, there's a limit as to waht's actually sortable, and given the way it's broken down into sections (and it would otherwise be a rather intractable list), even alpha sorting doesn't seem to be particularly useful, as you would only get alpha order for each section of the list.
As for the issues over dating Williams's appointment, there are various dates which could be considered to be when he was appointed:
  • When his appointment was first announced by Downing St
  • When the Conge d'Elire was issued by the Queen, and he was formally elected by the canons of Canterbury Cathedral
  • When he was legally confirmed in office
  • When he was enthroned
All but the enthronement (which is probably what I would go with, as it's only then that he fully takes up office) were in 2002, the enthronement was 2003, see official biography. David Underdown (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling, but I reworked the early parts of the list to use the Handbook of British Chronology a while back, and it's on my list of things to do the rest. Handbook's pretty much the authoritative "list" thing for British history, and the list is currently based off that until 1500. Hayden's and the other works are not currently being used for the older sections of the list. As for sortable, err.. why? There are some things that just don't need to be sortable, honestly. C4 says "where suitable" for sortable. As far as the history, I point you to the article on the office itself, which is where I would expect history to be. I'm not saying that it couldn't use work, but structurally and sourcing wise its as strong as some of the lists out there that have been recently passed, and it's definitely under my wing (like all the bishop lists and articles). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved. — sephiroth bcr (converse)

Comments from Sephiroth BCR

OKay, I am home. What needs to be dealt with? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A general list of stuff I saw on a brief look at the list:
  • The "this is a list..." style is no longer used and needs to be changed.
  • There are no sources in the lead aside from the source for the roles the Archbishops of Canterbury serve.
  • I don't understand why the dates and notes are small; remove the tags.
  • The background color for the list is odd. I don't think it's necessary.
  • What is the source for the Notes column?
  • Unless noted, it's from Handbook. Still some to source out (mainly the canonization stuff). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now they are all sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the earlier Archbishops have other names in parenthesis while the bold style is used for the modern day bishops? On that subject, the bolding is excessive and should be removed. Trying to rely on the bold to show the common name from the full name is bad.
  • The "All beginning dates are consecration dates, unless otherwise specified. All ending dates are death dates, unless otherwise noted" can likely be changed into a note ref rather than being repeated.
  • Any suggestions on where to place the note? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, didn't make myself clear. Where in the body of the article do you suggest putting it? I had notes on the column headers but they were nixed, so I'm not sure where to put the tags for the notes. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Let me know if that's not what you had in mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "Where the full name of an incumbent is not generally used, the name that is most commonly used is shown in bold (so, for example, Rowan Douglas Williams is usually called simply Rowan Williams)."
  • Removed the bolding so no longer relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifth note needs to be fully expanded with {{cite web}}
  • It was an unreliable site, so has been removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contact me when this has been addressed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments – good job on my points, and I have a few more.
  • Since the list isn't sortable, when there is a "vacant", use colspan="2"; align="center" to have the "vacant" expand across two columns and center it.
  • Call me incompetant, but I can't seem to get the thing to span two columns, after staring at the Help sections for a while. Can you show me a working example, perhaps? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "References" section, use ";General" and ";Specific" to separate the references.
That's it for now. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - do we really mean consecration as the default beginning date? certainly post-Reformation virtually all have been translated from other Sees - they would have been consecrated when they first became a bishop, and archbishop is not a further order, so you are not reconsecrated. Enthroned seems more likely on the whole. David Underdown (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we don't have enthronement dates very often for pre-1300 or so. We could use translation date for after the Reformation, easily enough. The Handbook of British Chronology doesn't use enthronement dates at all, so we'd be using ONDB or the Fasti Ecclesiae for that, when they are available. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the point I'm really making is that if the source describes it as consecration date for those translated from elsewhere, it's wrong. It's almost certainly enthronement date in fact. David Underdown (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HBC's format reads like this: "William Whittlesey - Accession - trs (translated) Worcester, prov. (provided) 11 Oct 1368, temp. (temporalities) 15 Jan 1369 Death, unless otherwise stated - 5 or 6 June 1375" or for something more modern "John Whitgift - Accession - trs Worcester, nom (nominated) 14 Aug, conf (confirmed) 23 Sept 1583 - Death, unless otherwise stated - 29 Feb 1604". Compare this with their entries from the Fasti Ecclesia, William Whittlesey - "Trans. from Worcester 11 Oct. 1368 (Reg. Wittlesey ff. 1-1b). Temps. 15 Jan. 1369 (CPR. 1367-1370 p. 187). Pallium bestowed 19 Apr. at Lambeth through bp. of Winchester (Reg. Wittlesey f. 7b). Enthroned 17 June (ibid. f. 13). D. 5/6 June 1374 (ibid. f. 68)." or John Whitgift - "Congé d'élire 14 Aug. 1583 (P.R.O., C 66/1229). Whitgift, bp. of Worcester, el. 23 Aug. (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift 1 f. 3; AC 1581-1607 f. 55r-v). Royal assent 27 Aug. (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift 1 ff. IV-2; P.R.O., C 66/1229). Conf. 23 Sept. by bps. of London, Peterborough, Lincoln and Salisbury (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift 1 ff. 1-8v). Temps. 10 Oct. (P.R.O., C 66/1229). D. 29 Feb. 1604 (Lamb., Reg. Whitgift III f. 279; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1603-10 p. 155)." which you'll note doesn't give an enthronement date. I suppose we could expand the "start" into different columns for the post Norman Conquest sections, giving "election or provision" "temporalities" "consecration" "enthronement" or similar columns, it's up to everyone. Just note that the Fasti only cover 1066-1857. The only really complete list is the HBC, which covers Augustine through Runcie, which is why I used it by preference. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that whenever it wasn't the consecration date I used from the HBC, I've given the type of date, such as "nominated" or "translated" or some such, in the start column. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that temp broadly coincides with enthronement, but I take your point. But if we're annotating virtually every entry, might it be better to chagne the default? David Underdown (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could do that for the post reformation section easy enough. Or, I'm really not adverse to breaking the start dates into more than one type, for comprehension. I'd only do that for the post Norman Conquest stuff, as prior to 1066, the information is kinda scanty. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Archbishops_of_Canterbury/archive1&oldid=1126722516"