# Talk:Robert fitzRoger

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert fitzRoger Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"fitzRoger" is not a surname, as used in the current version of this article. -Wetman (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's commonly used as a functional surname by historians. It's perfectly fine to use these sorts of patronymics as surnames for Wikipedia's purposes. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert fitzRoger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Any reason why his children aren't listed in the infobox?
I have no idea - the person who added the infobox didn't bother, I guess. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Should Eure be linked?
Actually - that "lord of ..." clause was inserted here without a source ... and I just removed it. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"FitzRoger founded the monastery of Langley, Norfolk in 1195." Optional, but in UK English that would be FitzRoger founded the monastery of Langley in Norfolk in 1195.'
Fixed. Another helpful addition from someone else. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Could we have an in line explanation of Michaelmas at first mention in the main article. Bracketed if you prefer.
I added an explanatory footnote - as the short version was still way long. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Link sheriff.
Link Premonstratensian canons.
Link Langley.
I linked to the abbey instead. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"Orford Castle". Add 'in Suffolk'.
Link Newburn.
Link Whalton.
"one knight's fee". Explanation please.
Linked. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I got all of the above. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"was an Anglo-Norman nobleman" I can't find this in the main article.
This one is going to have to be "the sky is blue" type of thing. He held lands and offices in Anglo-Norman England and he wasn't clergy - so the fact that he held office makes him ipso-facto a nobleman in this time. "He was considered a baron" is pretty much the big clue there. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. I just want you to use the phrase "Anglo-Norman" in the main article. (Or remove it from the lead.) We both know it is a given, but the rules say that if you put it in the summary - the lead - you should put at least the same information in the article.
It's there now. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)