Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1


 * 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 SchroCat 21:20, 4 January 2015.

List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset to FL and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane this is the next in the series (the third of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available.&mdash; Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Pipe link to Cluniac Reforms. Looks very good but does the column with the info in have to be so skinny?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done Cluniac Reforms, but I'm not sure which column are you seeing as skinny? If its the "Notes" column it is wide on my screen (I use large monitors). The width of the columns is not set & (I presume) autoformatted depending on your monitor. When I started this set of lists I was asked to add in the notes column, rather than make the reader go to the article for more info.&mdash; Rod talk 21:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On my monitor the notes column has a new line for every two or three words, making it look stretched vertically.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?&mdash; Rod talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Setting the column width doesn't seem to make any difference - this may be because of Template:EH listed building header. Asking for help there.&mdash; Rod talk 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Forcing the width at 20% would make the column narrower on my setup, where it currently occupies about 25% of the width of the table. In any case, I don't think this a a FL issue. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the same as Dr. Blofeld and also have to scroll table right/left as too wide as it stands. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm now confused. On Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.&mdash; Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is no real solution to this one at the moment, not really a sticking point for the promotion of this list. May be worth discussing this on a wider forum to see if anyone has any ideas how to improve things. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Shall I start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates as I'm not aware of any other discussion forum for list layout issues - the MOS & tables guidance don't seem to help as far as I can see.&mdash; Rod talk 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor point on ref 3 the "retrieved" needs capitalising as per other references. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed.&mdash; Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * "current legislation" - this is recentism, which is frowned on.
 * Removed (and I will do it on the other 6 where I have used this).&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Muchelney Abbey, which was founded in the 7th or 8th century," The source says 762. In the full entry below you have date as 12-16C, and 7C in the text.
 * I think this is because of a foundation around 762, however the surviving buildings are largely 15th century (according to this source).&mdash; [[User:Rodw|Rod] talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pastcape at says thought to be founded 762 and remains of 8C church have been found. I think you can say 8C - definitely not 7th. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Revised to "probably" 8th century.&mdash; Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Stoke sub Hamdon Priory was formed in 1304 as a chantry college rather than a priory." I found this - and the full entry below - confusing. It says below secular college, but neither word is used in the usual modern sense. Looking at the EH entry, secular means priests in the community as opposed to monks in a monastery, and college in this case means a group of secular priests attached to a chantry chapel. A clearer explanation would be helpful.
 * I have reorded this (and shortened it in the light of the column width discussion above).&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Cary Castle was built either by Walter of Douai or by his son Robert." Perhaps worth saying around 1100 - presumably it was definitely pre-Anarchy.
 * I've added "late 11th or early 12th century" as that is what the Pastscape source says - I don't there is any better evidence for the date.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Bruton Abbey was originally founded as a Benedictine priory by Algar, Earl of Cornwall in about 1005." This is dubious. Pastscape says: "According to Leland, it was formerly a Benedictine Monastery founded circa 1005, but there is no mention of such in the Domesday Survey." Algar, Earl of Cornwall does not sound like an early 11C title.
 * This source has Algar, as does this book and this website. This one has it founded in 1142, which is strange as this one (also from British History online) does have Algar.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The mentions of Algar all seem to be 19C sources, including BH online. I doubt whether the earldom of Cornwall existed before the Conquest and Earl of Cornwall says the same. You could say may have existed before the Conquest, but I don't think anything more definite. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find lots more sources for Algar of Cornwal - although it appears there may be some debate about his title. This book (from 1769) says "ALGER Earl of Cornwall, AD 1046 founded the abbey of Bruton. There seem to have been several people named Ælfgar in the 10th & 11th centuries & other variations on the name. Gazeter 1868 says "About the year 1005 a monastery was founded here by Algar, Earl of Cornwall, for monks of the Benedictine order, which was subsequently converted into a Dominican priory by William do Mohun." This recent book (2011) mentions Earl Ælfgar in association with manors in Somerset. I think it is verifiable in its current form, but would welcome further comment. One last thought is that Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia may have held (or claimed) other titles & could possibly be the person concerned. There may also be some confusion based on: "The Laud Chronicle (E) — 1048 [1051] "And then Odda was appointed earl over Devon, and over Somerset, and over Dorset, and over Cornwall; and Aelfgar, earl Leofric's son, was given the earldom which Harold had had." I don't really know where else to go with this.&mdash; Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've revised as you suggested. Help with ensuring the actual article at Bruton Abbey reflects the sources would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Bowl barrow known as `Wimble Toot'" Shown as Bronze Age even though latest research suggests it is Norman. "The interpretation of the site's original purpose has changed over time." This sentence is superfluous. Repetition of "originally".
 * Revised & I've put the date as Bronze Age or Norman as I think the jury is still out on this one.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hamdon Hill camp. I think it should be made clear that the evidence of mesolithic and neolithic occupation pre-dates the camp and has nothing to do with it.
 * Revised.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hillfort 475m south of Howley Farm. Repetition of univallate.
 * Revised.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The final item "Village Cross" is out of alphabetical order.
 * Moved.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another first rate list. A few nit-picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for spotting these. Further advice or discussion on the Muchelney Abbey and Bruton Abbey issues would be helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. A fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, nice to see a practical approach to some of the monuments, I don't suppose that even many inclusionists would agree that we need an article about a "A bowl barrow approximately 16 metres (52 ft) in diameter and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. There is at least one inconsistent date in the refs, so it may be worth just checking to make sure they are all formatted correctly. – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a few using a script. Are there any others I've missed?&mdash; Rod talk 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the proposed discussion on the contents, which was mooted earlier today, I suggest the FLC page would be a good place to go in the first instance, with notifications in the appropriate projects. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.