This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This page appears to be a block format of scattered information. There is no chronological order, nor has there been any major improvements since I put the tag on this page. The idea of a wiki tag is to let users who stumble upon this article that things can be done to correct it. By doing this, you add idea's from everyone not just yourself.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? I don't believe you have, because it is strictly chronologically ordered. The information is not scattered, it is found on the pages specified in the source specified, which also deals with it in chronological fashion. It is the sum of what is known, more or less, about Oveco. None of my ideas are present in the article, as that would be original research. I am only presenting the ideas of others. Further, I have included all relevant internal links. Can you name one specific problem? Srnec (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to include a table that would direct other users on where to go, this page would be outstanding. I am not familiar with this person, nor do I have any interest. Part of this is because I know little about the information here, and the other is this page does not meet wiki's quality standards. Put a table on it so that people can be directed on certain parts of the page. Somebody might find this entire article useless as it is, however, if it has a table they can be directed to the parts that they want to know.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is now a table. I have found numerous problems with the writing style of this article. The years that he lived and died are unclear and look like a fraction. I am going to put this article up for deletion under the AFD. I believe this will attract the attention of people to make this article better.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make a suggestion?
Part of the problem might be the uncertainty about the man in the historical record ( it was the Dark Ages, after all} and that has tended to be highlighted here.
Can I suggest:
a) moving the “Senior bishop.." section up into first place
b) splitting it at “The record of Oveco in subsequent years.. (?title "Later years )
c) having the “Earlier episcopate at the bottom
That way what is known about him will have more prominence that what isn’t.
Also, Is there a reference for Cosada’s and Risco’s theory? Is the Hispana Sacra source available anywhere? They could go in as references. Swanny18 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried not to introduce any of the arguments underlying the conclusions into the article. What the article says about Oveco is true of Oveco the bishop of Oviedo, it is not possible that it in fact pertains to Oveco of León. Further, the hypothesis that there were two Oveco's is roundly (and I think rightly) dismissed in my source and the error is in fact quite old: Posada and Risco died in 1831 and 1801 respectively. There is no reason to treat their theories on par with those of a modern scholar writing in 1948. Further, I have found no other modern source using the numbering "Oveco I" and "Oveco II", indicating that the distinction is as dead as its theorists. This is why I don't think moving the "Senior bishop" section up and the "Earlier episcopate" section down will help. It just screws up the chronology: the earlier Oveco and the senior Oveco are one and the same and "their" episcopate can be reconstructed in some detail, as my source has done.
I don't think "The record of Oveco in subsequent years" actually represents a good break point, though I am not adverse to splitting that section. I tried, but I couldn't find a good place, the whole of it is united by the "theme" of Oveco's seniority and importance during the reign of Ramiro II. Let me stress again that I have tried to always indicate clearly and explicitly what is fact, what speculation, and what error about Oveco.
