Talk:List of archbishops of Canterbury

Translation
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)

Cranmer
Listed as a pre-Reformation Archbishop. ???????!Jatrius (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cranmer straddles the English Reformation. He was confirmed by the pope, before the Church of England broke away. Thus, the start of his episcopate is Pre-Reformation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 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)
 * See above... where would you put him, he was indeed confirmed by the pope. That kinda puts him in the pre-Church of England establishment. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 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)
 * Yes, but Pole was recognized by the pope also, so we again have that issue to deal with. Parker's the first one that was indisputably not validly consecrated, according to the Catholic Church. We could always break Cranmer, Pole and Parker into their own section .. Unfortunately, the Reformation was not an event noted for strict starting and ending dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not particularly matter if Rome recognized their consecration as valid or not. That is a tangential point to when the English Reformation started. If the English Reformation is recognized as beginning in 1534, then part (most) of his reign was after the beginning of the Reformation, and thus he and his successor belong in the latter category. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cranmer and Pole indeed complicate matters. But since the Elizabethan settlement is the best point to split the list, why not also use it in the headline? I did so now.
 * (Why is it the best point? 1. It easily divides two eras without us having to go back and forth between Cranmer the Protestant and Pole the Catholic. 2. It is also true in regard to the episcopal status of these two bishops. Cranmer, though theologically some kind of Protestant, was not only confirmed by the Pope, his (and, of course, Pole's) ordination was sacramental in the way it is understood by the Roman Church. In this, they differs from their Elizabethan successors
 * I also changed the other two headlines. It smacks of an teleological approach (and thus of ideology and POV) to define something as being "pre-...": it does justice neither to the Anglo-Saxon bishops to define them as pre-Conquest, nor to the Norman, Plantagenet and early Tudor bishops to label them as pre-Reformation, especially to bishops that lived centuries before the Conquest or the Reformation, respectively.
 * Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideas to brighten-up the list
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)
 * The reason that elected or nominated is listed is because there is differing dates on when "start" is. Not every medieval archbishop has an enthroned or consecration date, so for precision, we give what exactly the date signifies. I don't have any objections to color but prefer having the full dates when possible, as a matter of precision. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have a point on the dates. I wonder if the month be shortened. For example: 30 September 653 → 30 Sep 653. It gives the same information, but makes the columns neater. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an issue to shorten the dates at all. I'm also fine with going (E) or (N) after the date as a shorthand for election or nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

TFL comments
Comments: Looks very good and almost ready. bamse (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) ALT text, checklinks and dablinks tests passed.
 * 2) I don't really understand or like the doubling of information in the section titles and the first (colspanned) table rows (e.g. "Pre-Norman conquest Archbishops" and "Pre-Conquest Archbishops of Canterbury"). IMHO the first table rows should be removed.
 * 3) In "Since then they have been outside of the succession...", "they" seems to refer to the archbishops but the previous sentence has "church" as subject.
 * 4) Is there a reason why the "vacant" periods don't start with the end date (including day and month) of the previous period but only with the respective year?
 * 5) How about the availability of images of the archbishops on wikipedia/commons? Could they fill an image column?
 * 6) Not sure I understand the meaning of "tr." and "nom.". For instance for John Whitgift (other examples exist) it says "nom." in the first column, but "translated" in the last. Shouldn't it say "tr." in the first column as well? bamse (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Refs 2 and 3 and 56 need publisher information and retrieval dates.
 * 8) Use either "accessed" or "retrieved" not both.
 * 9) Refs 33, 35, 44, 49, 50, 52, 55 need publisher information. They appear to be on a private page of Salvador Miranda. Has it been checked for WP:RS?
 * 10) All refs with a url should have accessdates (e.g. 59, 63,...). Please check.


 * 7. - those references are to books given in the "general references" .. which I've added the horn. The retrieval dates are given in the full listing. 8. Fixed. More to follow. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10. All the specific references should now have accessdates - the ones that don't are listed with full bibliographic details in the general references section. 9. I shall work on shortly to get that information from the prelate's ODNB articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9. All refs to Miranda's site are gone, replaced with the relevant ODNB article. 2. Fixed. 5. Most of the early archbishops will lack images - so it's probably best to just not put in images (plus the fact that it bloats an already rather large list) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the first table rows and added the specific vacancy dates. The abbreviations "tr." and "nom." are used depending on which date is given; if a particular archbishop was translated but the date given is the nomination date, the "nom." abbreviation is used. Neelix (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay...
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)


 * Um, the proper thing to do when you are reverted (And can we please use edit summaries too? That helps a bunch with knowing what is being done, thank you), is to discuss on the talk page, not revert back to your version. Discuss, like I did above. I've asked for some help from an admin rather than edit warring, but I want it noted that I still object to the stripping out of the colors and the formatting. Just because I didn't take the bait for edit warring doesn't mean I approve of the changes. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I just applied bold editing here because I see no point in retaining such colors here. Same applies to the previous formatting. Next, portraits add nothing to our knowledge here but I'm sure they don't degrade it in any way. Also, portraits aren't too small in my opinion - they're 70px large; anyone can make them larger if they wish. I just tried to make this list look more like List of popes. I don't see anything disputable in my edits here. --Sundostund (Talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is a featured list - List of popes is not, so it's not a good guide here - colors and fancy formatting are considered a good thing for our lists - they make it easier on the reader. The colors and fancy formatting make it easier to read - the shaded colors that vary between lines make it easier to read across - the justified table format makes it easier to read, by spreading out the information rather than squishing it. Bold editing is fine, but when you are reverted - the solution isn't to revert back in your changes - that's edit warring. Can you kindly self-revert ... there is no need to strip out the colors which are in fact encouraged by our list standards. Check out Featured lists for other examples of featured lists, and Featured list criteria where the criteria include "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is a list about major religious leaders, so I think List of popes - although it's not a featured list - can serve as some kind of guide here. I really don't see how these colors can make it easier to read. If you ask me, they looks so gay. I also see them as non-essential for our knowledge here. I respect your opinion, but you're too much optimistic if you believe that I'll revert edits which I spent whole day to make. Cheers, --Sundostund (Talk) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, but what about the efforts of the (other) editor who spent all that time putting in the colors. Also - can we not use "If you ask me, they looks so gay" which isn't really very polite - equating ugly to homosexuals is really not very cool. I did not put the colors in, they were added by another editor, but I did agree with them. Note that most of the English bishopric articles use the same colors, giving a uniform look to the articles. I did not ask you to remove the portraits, just the removal of the colors and formatting. Although - if you're using fair use images here, they all need their Fair Use Rationale's updated to include this page, which I'm sure you did, right? Featured lists must have up to date Fair Use Rationales for any fair use images used in them... you added the pictures, it's up to you to make sure they comply. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have taken on board that this is a featured list, and therefore must comply with the featured list criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) As the list of popes is obviously not of the same quality of this list, it should not be used as a yard stick. Rather that list should be trying to emulate this. Regarding Sundostund's changes, what strikes me is that they have slightly messed up the column widths. It's a minor presentation thing, but it is preferable for the separate tables have matching column widths. As for colours for the rows, I think it's acceptable to have them. It's fine per WP:ACCESS as it's there to produced a slight contrast between rows to make them easier to read across and I'm not seeing a compelling reason to remove them. Sundostund, you have been reverted by two different editors, please do not revert while the changes are under discussion. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think so then why not nominate it at WP:FLC? Who knows, you might even learn something. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not so cocky now eh? Try it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how the list of popes is better to be honest. The miniscule text in the 'personal names', 'place of birth', and 'notes' columns probably fails WP:ACCESS, the column widths are all over the place, giving the list a messy feel, and if it was taken to WP:FL they'd say there weren't enough references. I don't doubt you thought you were improving this list, but good intentions aren't necessarily enough. Nev1 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not about personal preferences, it's about the FL criteria. If you don't like them, then try to get them changed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mostly it's not a question of opinion but whether the list complies with the relevant policies and guidelines (list of popes does not), which is what you are going to have to refer to if you want to change this list. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 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 just checked out your user page; are you a troll? -Rrius (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A troll, with my 23.000 edits since March 2010?? Of course I'm not a troll. What you found on my user page which prompted you to ask me such a question?? --Sundostund (Talk) 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't call you a troll. Second, I asked whether you were a troll based on your self-application labels about political systems that are so out of step with the sort of values that would generally lead one to edit here that they certain give one pause and of other labels that people who oppose gay rights generally reject as pejorative. There was more than enough there to call your intentions into question. There is no rule that says you have to put those things on your user page, so your choice to do so asks for your intentions to be called into question. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 19 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., ,. (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)


 * Too many "subscription required" references? There's only one that I can see, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, to gain access to which, at least in the UK, all you have to do is join a public library. Which costs absolutely nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is free for UK users who have joined their local public library, but for those who haven't or live outside the UK it costs - see How to subscribe fees. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tough. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So much for Etiquette. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you take the trouble to read it yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 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). DBD 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't "juvenile backbiting" a personal attack? Would you and Scrivener be happier to see the online ODNB citations replaced by a dead tree version? You know, anyone can go to a library and consult the ODNB is there's something they want to check. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've struck out the controversial "subscription required" comment. Lets move on and discuss the other two. Are there any objections to simplifying the years columns, with the full dates in the notes column? The same with the additional/alternative names cut down to the really neccessary ones? Scrivener-uki (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've no issues with either. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care about the alternative names, but I don't see your point on dates. What we should have is one preferred sort of starting date and use other dates where we don't have the preferred one for a given bishop. That appears to be what the status quo is trying to do, but it seems to have picked the wrong date. Since a bishop can be consecrated as a bishop, then translated to a new see, it doesn't make much sense to use the consecration date. Enthronement makes more sense to me, but I am open to persuasion about election or some other date. Whichever we choose, the objections about codes in the date column will largely be answered. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't have reliable enthronement dates for most medieval archbishops - that's the main issue. I cant' think of a pre-Conquest archbishop that has one (maybe Dunstan). And up until about 1300 or so they are pretty spotty... so enthronement isn't a good date for Pre-Reformation archbishops. Election/Selection probably works better than consecration, but sometimes the only reliable date we have is consecration - thus why it's used. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of consecration, enthronment, or any other full date (DD/MMM/YYYY) for the "Until" column, just have the basic year date (YYYY). The same with the "Until" column having a basic ending year. The various full dates (nominated, elected, consecrated, enthroned, deprived, resigned, died, etc) would be in the Notes column. So for example Edmund Grindal's entry would look like this:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="width: 95%;"


 * -valign=top
 * width=8% align=center|1576 ||width=8% align=center| 1583 ||width=25%|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.
 * }
 * This solves not just the problem which type of starting/ending dates to use in the From/Until columns, but also allows all the other types of dates mentioned in the Notes column. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Church" be capitalised in the lead?
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)
 * It is a question of style, and for us, WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters says no. -Rrius (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

English Archibishop
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219235020/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/73 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/73

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) 03:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214105116/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/104 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/104
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427153940/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/887
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801212705/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1235 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1235
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801212615/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1239 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1239
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315213554/http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/919 to http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/919

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) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)