Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Gregorian mission

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [1].

List of members of the Gregorian mission

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because... I would like to take the topic to Featured Topic, and I feel this list is as well researched as possible given the obscurity of the time period. All comments welcomed! But I'm not a big "list coder" so if you want me to do something fancy with the code of the list, be prepared to help me through it. I'm much more comfortable with FAC and prose and sources than I am with wikimarkup for tables...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
Lead
  • The Gregorian mission was a group of Italian monks and priests sent by Pope Gregory the Great to Britain in the late 6th and early 7th century AD to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. -- You may as well link to Christianity
  • After a long trip, during which they almost gave up and returned to Rome, they arrived in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent in 597. -- I thought dates from AD and BC included AD/BC in the date like "597 AD"?
We don't have to say AD after every one, or so I thought.
I took out the first AD ... I cheat. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to be substantially expanded to give more of a summary of the list itself and more about the members.
That would be what the individual articles on the members is for, right? I'm genuinely asking here, I don't fiddle much with FLs. The only one I'm involved much with is the List of Archbishops of Canterbury which is pretty simple at the top. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, all FLs are required to have a summary prose of the list itself, like who were the most (blah) what did the most (blah) who was the first to (blah) who is the most recent to (blah). [Stuff like that.]--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bulked it up some (I feel like I'm back writing term papers... need to make that page count!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Table
  • Needs to be separated into a new section apart from the lead.
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "unknown" and "either"'s
This one? What did you mean? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okies. done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalize "deacon"
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did "John" not die?
Presumably he did, we don't know a date. Gave him a big "unknown"
  • What does "c. 607" mean?
circa. Fancy historian way to say "around" Just spelled it out rather than abbreviate. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • c 624 -- be consistent with the formatting (with or without that period)
See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a key to explain the column headers and what information is included in that column
Does that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it does ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
Those are some quick replies, I'll get to the rest of them tomorrow when I'm less groggy. Thanks for the suggestions! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the archbishops were the first five Archbishops of Canterbury: Augustine, Laurence, Mellitus, Justus, and Honorius,[1] all of them later canonized as saints. -- I feel that the comma after Honroius should be a semi-colon
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, in the lead I would give an overall count of the members, like Overall there were....(so and so) members of (so and so).
We don't know how many exactly, but I've put in a bit that explains that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entries in the last column which have no specific refs are unverified or sourced with the general reference?
Not to the general ref, no. If they aren't named as saints in the works, it's assumed that they aren't saints. I can source this to the actual biography for Romanus, but the other three aren't named as saints in the general ref (and I have no biographies of them, they are too obscure to rate that.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I see. I guess its fine since they aren't literally state as such.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromised with removing the general ref stuff from the table, but keeping it in the text, that way folks know where I got info from in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but there are still some comments above that I replied too, but you haven't readdressed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it really necessary to have a separate List of members of the Gregorian mission? Why not just include the table in the main article when it is such a short one? --Skizzik talk 10:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm trying for a nice featured topic and it's suggested that there be a list article. Also, I find it helpful to have all the information in one spot, as well as the fact that the main article is reasonably lenghty (well into the "split if needed" length). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, where do you got that suggestion from? I think the topic would be a nice one even without the list as a separate article. Including it in the main article seems to be the case in many featured topics when the list is not to long (see for example [2], [3], [4], [5]). Splitting it just to include it in a topic looks a little strange to me, and I don't think the main article is too big. But I guess this is a personal view so do what you think is the best, good job so far anyway! --Skizzik talk 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep it separate, as I think it clutters the main article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I look forward to see it on WP:FTC. --Skizzik talk 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Minor things, really, because I looked at the article beforehand. It's good stuff, and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm Catholic!

  • I made minor prose tweaks rather than comment here, I hope you don't mind.
Heck, no. My prose needs all the help it can get. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "circa" (c) is a Latin abbreviation, so per MOS:ABBR, it and its abbreviated form should be in italics.
fixed.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canonized?" I don't think the question mark is necessary.
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the non-archbishops, three were regarded as saints: Peter, James the Deacon, and Paulinus." Correct me if I'm wrong, but one becomes a saint if they are canonized, yes? You say "regarded", which puts doubt into the reader's mind of whether they were actually 100% real deal saints or not. Is there no definite answer? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to about 1050 or so, there was no formal process for canonization. Saints prior to that were just sorta "acclaimed". If enough folks claimed you were a saint, you were a saint. Since all of these guys died before then, most of their "sainthoods" don't have formal processes. The only one that's gone through paperwork is Peter of Canterbury, who went through a process in 1915 that "confirmed" he was a saint. I can throw in a wikilink to the relevant part of canonization that's linked to "regarded". I also changed the verb tense, as they still are regarded as saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanation. The link and verb tense change are good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good (not that I expected them to be any other way). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You might want to fix the odd sorting on some of those columns - Date of arrival in England and Death date specifically. You can use text with a display:none style to achieve that. — neuro(talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HOw do you mean odd sorting? We're dealing with approximate dates here for some of them, someone kindly went through and put in some code that makes them sort close to the approximate date. They now sort the columns correctly according to the dates to my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, sorry, mindgoof. For some reason I didn't realise that they had been made to sort independently of what was visible, which was what I was asking for. Ignore me ;) — neuro(talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO worries. I was just afraid there was something I wasn't seeing that was horribly wrong... it wouldn't be the first time I was oblivious. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
Comments from Bencherlite

Just a few minor suggestions:

I"ve added a sculpture of Augie boy. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two other missionaries, Paulinus and Romanus, became bishops, which doesn't include the archbishops who were bishops before being nominated to Canterbury. A little clunky, and shouldn't have a "doesn't" in it. How about "Two other missionaries, Paulinus and Romanus, also became bishops."?
Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the non-archbishops, three are regarded as saints:... Not too keen on "non-archbishops" - how about "As well as the five archbishops, three other members of the mission are regarded as saints:..."
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, what's the difference between "Either 597 or 601" and "Unknown"? Did others arrive at other times? I think that's what you say in the lead, but the heading to the table makes it sound as if there were only two arrival dates.
A couple of the members don't have any speculation on a date when they arrived. Although I don't know of any other groups that came, it's always possilbe there were. The ones that say "either" a source has speculated that. When it says unknown, the information is that they were probably in the mission, but no one has speculated on a date. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good. BencherliteTalk 13:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wonder whether the use of "we" and "us" in the second para of the lead is appropriate, but the alternative may be the passive voice (gasp!) which also has its critics. Anyway, if you can think of another way of phrasing it, please do, but I'm happy to support. (I like the picture you found in particular). BencherliteTalk 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it. Using personal prounouns is an MOS breach, and more generally, is unencyclopedic. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_members_of_the_Gregorian_mission&oldid=1138486898"