Talk:Cuthmann of Steyning

Untitled
even stubs are supposed to be articulate... Staffelde 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That articulate enough for you? :-)User&#124;Neddyseagoon 20:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it is for me. Congratulations on an[other] excellent rewrite ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article, Neddyseagoon, but your references aren't really references. Bwpach 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's easier to put those pieces of info in reference form than clog up the main text with them. User&#124;Neddyseagoon 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And can I convince you to use the "Show preview" button instead of saving so often? Bwpach 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying, but old habits die hard and my computer often conks out, thus losing everything. :-) User&#124;Neddyseagoon 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
It would be easier to navigate this article if the images of the stained-glass windows were in a gallery at the bottom of the page... I can do this if you'd like, I just wanted to discuss it here first before taking any action on it.

By the way, I did have to remove that template you created in place of an infobox (my rationale is listed in the summary). I thought I should mention that here as well.

This article is coming along well, but I think it needs more people working on it to clean it up a bit and get some more references in it. It's a great start though.

Cheers. --Alekjds 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Rating
I would continue to rate this article as B-Class, although you appear to have made great progress on it. The graphics/pictures for this article are great. I would suggest including in-text citations (as per WP:FN) of the sources for information. I would also suggest removing the external link to the blog -- To my opinion, it only barely falls within WP:EL (someone else may think it is inappropriate as self-published), and you have the same information elsewhere. -- Pastordavid 17:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though his cult spread to Normandy, he's still very obscure though. I have reduced him to low importance. Walgamanus 12:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cuthman or Cuthmann
This article has recently been renamed from "Cuthman" to "Cuthmann". I would like to propose that it be moved back again. There may (I don't know) be some historical evidence for the double "n", but there is certainly little contemporary support. He is know as "Cuthman". Single "n" is the universal use in his town of Steyning (where I lived until two years ago), and in every book, article, and devotional that I possess. His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Saints is "Cuthman" and there is not even an alternative option given for the double "n". Similarly it is "Cuthman" at Catholic Online, Catholic Encyclopedia, and assorted other sources. (A Google search does bring up some references to a double "n", mostly on private blogs, but actually proposes "Cuthman" as the correct and intended spelling, indicating that Google has a massively higher number of Cuthman entries than those with double "n" - 58,000 for Cuthman against 3,000 for Cuthmann.) I'm afraid this seems to me like, at best, an academic affectation. An encyclopedia entry should be current. If we start changing all article titles into medieval spelling (assuming that is the reason for the recent change) we'll all be lost!  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  12:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Google hits don't matter, as 95%+ of such sources aren't reliable (a comparative test on gbooks shows I think clearly that the most reliable sources favour the double nn). Cuthmann is a rationalized spelling 'mann being the standardized form of this element. This is a problem across lots of articles where a derivative local spelling for a name is at odds with a rational spelling (c/f Alphege versus Ælfheah), but it is generally better to favour the rationalized spelling as this is most likely to be identifiable to a wider scholarly audience. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't find any evidence of devotion to a "Saint Cuthmann". Where people venerate this man, it is as "St Cuthman". The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament article references the Ward of St Cuthman in Sussex. A Google search reveals the Roman Catholic diocesan retreat centre in Sussex named St Cuthman's. The ODS (as noted above) refers only to "St Cuthman". Every source on my bookshelf (and I have been looking) refers to "St Cuthman". His own church in Steyning is called "St Andrew and St Cuthman". With respect, Google hits ARE relevant - they show what people are actually saying/writing on a subject - and clearly what they are writing is "Cuthman". I say again, "St Cuthmann" is an affectation, and as an encyclopedia article, the name should be "Cuthman".  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole affectation argument is a nonsense and you might as well drop it (and you just need to put Cuthmann into a gbook search to find it). In England modern local spellings of saints often differ markedly from standard Old English spellings, but c'est la vie. Locals know who Alphege and Audrey are, interested academics know Ælfheah and Æthelthryth; ultimately the article on Cuthmann of Steyning is about an Anglo-Saxon holy man; St Cuthman's Church or School is about modern institutions. I say use each as appropriate, as we do elsewhere (Adomnán versus St Eunan's College in Ireland is another comparison). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you're quite right that Alphege is an equally ridiculous case in point. Indeed we had a similar discussion there (still visible on the talk page) which had a 3/5 majority in favour of correcting the title to "Alphege", despite which it is still Ælfheah, a word meaningless to the vast majority. You may as well argue that articles about a historical period be written in the language of that period. As another editor, Diomedea Exulans, pointed out at the Alphege discussion, this is not a specialist academic project, but an encyclopedia whose articles are directed, in the main, at non-specialists. Of course ancient historical variations on names are worthy of mention in the article, indeed make sense in that context, but as the article title they make no sense at all.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are presenting false exclusivity, but in any case the point is that this is a global project not one just for little towns in England. When our most reliable sources use Cuthmann, we do; when one spelling is recognized universally and another just in one English region, we go with the former. Now this particular example isn't really a good show case, but otherwise it's that simple. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever the merits of the two cases, the move was clearly likely to be controversial and should have been discussed here, or put up at WP:Requested moves first. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuthmann of Steyning. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104181620/http://www.catholic-forum.com/SAINTS/saintc51.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc51.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

name of church
What name did St Cuthmann originally give it? And is is now called "St Andrew's" as per "Travels (sic) to Steyning" or "St Andrew and St Cuthmann" as per "Veneration"? --142.163.194.123 (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)