![]() | List of archbishops of Canterbury is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on April 7, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Technically was Rowan Williams translated from Wales or Monmouth? I thought the Archbishop of Wales lacked a see of its own, hence being held by one of the diocesan bishops. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Listed as a pre-Reformation Archbishop. ???????! Jatrius ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that the article is defining the Elizabethan Settlement as the beginning of the English Reformation. Deusveritasest ( talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of Cranmer, but also his successor. Both are depicted as having held the office within the "To the Reformation" section. It all depends on when we decide the English Reformation began. Usually it is dated to 1534. The way the article reads now it would seem, however, that whoever wrote it seems to have thought that the Elizabethan Settlement was the real beginning of the English Reformation. Deusveritasest ( talk) 02:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the list by rearranging the "Start" and "End" columns, plus added one for the number of each archbishop, except of course those who weren't recognised or enthroned, etc.
In the "Start" and "End" columns they show many with the full date rather than the year. I feel they look a bit clumsy and would look much clearer with just the year only. I recently overhauled
List of Archbishops of York, which needed to be brought up to scratch, only shows the year only. How do other editors feel about with
List of Archbishops of Canterbury having only the year only? I'm sure that if someone particulary wants to know the full date, then all they need to do is click on the article to find out. The same with "elected" or "nominated", etc be removed from the "Start / End" columns. Things such as that if needed, then could mentioned in the "Notes" column.
I'm wondering about reintroduce colour again, as with the List of Archbishops of York article?
How are people's thoughts about these ideas?
Scrivener-uki (
talk)
05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Looks very good and almost ready.
bamse ( talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
What's with the removing of colors and all the formatting as well as adding the portraits. The portraits add nothing to our knowledge here - as they are so small that no detail is visible. And any additions/subtractions of colors should have been discussed on the talk page before mucking about with a featured list - some changes are certainly eligible for bold editing but that drastic of a formatting change is more than is needed. Reverting the change of colors, leaving the portraits for discussing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The article looks much better with the colour and formatting. Why would List of popes be the standard? It is not a Featured List, this is. One editor supports the plain, I would say ugly, version. Four have supported the colourful version. There is simply no consensus to change it, so I hope Sundostond's childish edit warring is over. - Rrius ( talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the alternate white/purple background colours. They make it easier for the reader to see one incumbent to the next. Purple is associated with bishops/archbishops and that is why there are the alternate while/pale-purple rows. I don't know why the claret headers have been removed. Here are a few suggestions which would IMO make the list look better.
(1) The From/Until columns look clumsy with different types of dates: elected, nominated, translated, deprived, etc. It would be much easier for the reader with basic From/Until years dates, with the various full dates and other infomation in the Notes column. – see
Bishop of London,
Bishop of Bangor,
Archbishop of Cashel as examples. Other websites have the basic From/Until year dates, e.g.
[1],
[2],
[3].
(2) The additional/alternative names in the Notes column should be cut down to those which are really needed. Is it really neccessary for all of Jænberht's other names? A couple perhaps, but not all. Obviously with some others it does make sense to include their other names, e.g. William Chillenden who is also known as Adam Chillenden.
(3) There are too many "subscription required" references. I'm sure there are one or two pay-to-see sources needed since no other free sources are available. But are the rest really needed? Wikipedia after all is a free encyclopedia and so we shouldn't encourage pay-to-see sources. We've plenty of free ones on the internet.
Scrivener-uki (
talk)
20:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Skipping neatly over the juvenile back-biting, I like to say that I agreed with Scrivener. However, should someone start simplifying the years columns, please make sure the data is listed elsewhere on the 'pedia – i.e. on the bishop's article (if they have one) or the notes column (iff they do not). D B D 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
1576 | 1583 | Edmund Grindal | Translated from York. Nominated on 29 December 1575, elected on 10 January 1576, confirmed on 15 February 1576, and enthroned on 20 February 1576. Died in office on 6 July 1583. |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:AbpRandallDavidson.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
In several places the lead talks about "the church", but ought not "church" to be capitalised in such cases? Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Who was the next Archbishop of Canterbury after Stigand who was of Anglo-Saxon/English descent, i.e. not descended from the Norman aristocracy or of other origins?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Archbishops of Canterbury. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of Archbishops of Canterbury. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | List of archbishops of Canterbury is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on April 7, 2014. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Technically was Rowan Williams translated from Wales or Monmouth? I thought the Archbishop of Wales lacked a see of its own, hence being held by one of the diocesan bishops. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Listed as a pre-Reformation Archbishop. ???????! Jatrius ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that the article is defining the Elizabethan Settlement as the beginning of the English Reformation. Deusveritasest ( talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of Cranmer, but also his successor. Both are depicted as having held the office within the "To the Reformation" section. It all depends on when we decide the English Reformation began. Usually it is dated to 1534. The way the article reads now it would seem, however, that whoever wrote it seems to have thought that the Elizabethan Settlement was the real beginning of the English Reformation. Deusveritasest ( talk) 02:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the list by rearranging the "Start" and "End" columns, plus added one for the number of each archbishop, except of course those who weren't recognised or enthroned, etc.
In the "Start" and "End" columns they show many with the full date rather than the year. I feel they look a bit clumsy and would look much clearer with just the year only. I recently overhauled
List of Archbishops of York, which needed to be brought up to scratch, only shows the year only. How do other editors feel about with
List of Archbishops of Canterbury having only the year only? I'm sure that if someone particulary wants to know the full date, then all they need to do is click on the article to find out. The same with "elected" or "nominated", etc be removed from the "Start / End" columns. Things such as that if needed, then could mentioned in the "Notes" column.
I'm wondering about reintroduce colour again, as with the List of Archbishops of York article?
How are people's thoughts about these ideas?
Scrivener-uki (
talk)
05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Looks very good and almost ready.
bamse ( talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
What's with the removing of colors and all the formatting as well as adding the portraits. The portraits add nothing to our knowledge here - as they are so small that no detail is visible. And any additions/subtractions of colors should have been discussed on the talk page before mucking about with a featured list - some changes are certainly eligible for bold editing but that drastic of a formatting change is more than is needed. Reverting the change of colors, leaving the portraits for discussing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The article looks much better with the colour and formatting. Why would List of popes be the standard? It is not a Featured List, this is. One editor supports the plain, I would say ugly, version. Four have supported the colourful version. There is simply no consensus to change it, so I hope Sundostond's childish edit warring is over. - Rrius ( talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the alternate white/purple background colours. They make it easier for the reader to see one incumbent to the next. Purple is associated with bishops/archbishops and that is why there are the alternate while/pale-purple rows. I don't know why the claret headers have been removed. Here are a few suggestions which would IMO make the list look better.
(1) The From/Until columns look clumsy with different types of dates: elected, nominated, translated, deprived, etc. It would be much easier for the reader with basic From/Until years dates, with the various full dates and other infomation in the Notes column. – see
Bishop of London,
Bishop of Bangor,
Archbishop of Cashel as examples. Other websites have the basic From/Until year dates, e.g.
[1],
[2],
[3].
(2) The additional/alternative names in the Notes column should be cut down to those which are really needed. Is it really neccessary for all of Jænberht's other names? A couple perhaps, but not all. Obviously with some others it does make sense to include their other names, e.g. William Chillenden who is also known as Adam Chillenden.
(3) There are too many "subscription required" references. I'm sure there are one or two pay-to-see sources needed since no other free sources are available. But are the rest really needed? Wikipedia after all is a free encyclopedia and so we shouldn't encourage pay-to-see sources. We've plenty of free ones on the internet.
Scrivener-uki (
talk)
20:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Skipping neatly over the juvenile back-biting, I like to say that I agreed with Scrivener. However, should someone start simplifying the years columns, please make sure the data is listed elsewhere on the 'pedia – i.e. on the bishop's article (if they have one) or the notes column (iff they do not). D B D 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
1576 | 1583 | Edmund Grindal | Translated from York. Nominated on 29 December 1575, elected on 10 January 1576, confirmed on 15 February 1576, and enthroned on 20 February 1576. Died in office on 6 July 1583. |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:AbpRandallDavidson.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
In several places the lead talks about "the church", but ought not "church" to be capitalised in such cases? Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Who was the next Archbishop of Canterbury after Stigand who was of Anglo-Saxon/English descent, i.e. not descended from the Norman aristocracy or of other origins?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Archbishops of Canterbury. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of Archbishops of Canterbury. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)