Talk:Robert of Jumièges

message: Is that right? I thought (and Barlow's Edward... and Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England seem to agree) that he was unflattering surnamed Robert Champart. If that is right, does anyone have handy an explanation of how he came by it? As it happens, we don't have a champart article, but :fr:champart would take no time at all to translate. Or is there somewhere it could be redirected to right now? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DNB also says Champart was a surname, although they inclose it in []s, so its an 'alternate' name. Here we go "His nickname ‘Champart’ apparently derives from a term denoting a share of a crop paid as rent" I'll add that in. I'll add that into the article, you up to doing the French translation? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in, and I think we're ready to let CP see it again. Anything else? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing more. I think when I was googling Robert I saw some things that suggest a link between the new church at Jumièges, started when he was abbot there, and Edward's Westminster, started when he was Bishop of London. Does the DNB connect Robert, Jumièges, and Westminster? Here's an example. I promise that's the last one. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  THis is what DNB says, and I think it can wait until I find out which scholars are suggesting which way the influence goes :"Probably in 1040 he began work upon the magnificent abbey church of St Mary, which was perhaps a model for Westminster Abbey, although a reverse influence has been suggested" Seems like there are a lot of qualifiers on that sentence, to me. I'll try to get a copy of that year's issue of the Battle Conference Report, but it'll be a while before I can track it down. I'm not planning on stopping work on Robert boy, ideally some of these ABCs will go to FA. I think Theobald and Stigand could do so pretty easy. NOt sure there is quite enough on Robert, but we'll see. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Chambert? 

message: Well done, everyone. Ealdgyth, what is next? -- SECisek 01:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: As requested, here is a second look at the article. I find it muc improved, but there are still some places where context could be made clearer and / or language could be polished / improved.
*Internal consistency - the first sentence says died 26 May 1052 or 1055, but then in the second paragraph of the lead it says The archbishop died in exile at Jumièges either between 1053 and 1055 or shortly before 1070. There are four dates in these two sentences (1052, 1053, 1055 and 1070) but only one agrees between the two. 1070 is not mentioned again in the article.
:: Clarified. The 1070 might have been the last remnant of the 1911 Britannica. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clarified. It was France then too, in a very broad context (Normandy was considered part of France then, if barely.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "in Normandy" would work too Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Clarified. Any other spots you want dates? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. This is a great example of "I'm a medievalist, I know these dates..." syndrome! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I can see Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Can't hurt. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  If it tripped you up, yep, it'll help. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  That's because the and should be "of" or "at". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Added parenthetical. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Changed to "Robert probably claimed the office of sheriff of Kent on the strength of Archbishop Edsige having held the office also." which makes it clear that it was an office. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Yes, "something" was meant. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Blech, this is one of the more picky things I can think of... but I'll fix them. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I check them by searching the article in one window for "][" and then swapping ref orders (editing) in another window Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  clarified, I meant that he left IN company with them, but just cut that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  I couldn't fix the fair use for it as I didn't have the source for it (I didn't upload it). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  All three are articles that delve into much more details on the background than really needs to be in the article, they are there for folks who might want to learn more about the Romanesque building works or about the great historical debate on when or if Edward really DID designate William as his heir. (It's one of those great debates among historians... reams of paper have been expended on it, as well as many a evening spent drinking wine and rehashing all the points... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Oh, good, I can escape another run at PR? I'll fix these things today or tomorrow and get Karan and Brian to do a read through before going to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if the lead should have something on his legacy - possible introduction of Romanesque architecture and the missal? Would it also make sense to just say (died sometime between 1052 and 1055) in the first lead sentence? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm, might not hurt. I'll try to think of something ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Added something. Probably not the best we can do, but it's something. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: the problem with the Missal image is that even though it bears his name, he didn't commission it. It was something he found in England and just shipped to Rouen, so while it bears mentioning, images from it are somewhat misleading. I'd rather stick with the pics of places he was, honestly, and things he did start. The Romanesque stuff is much more of a "legacy" than a book he looted. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second look after Peer review 

message: What is "Barlow The Godwins p. 42" in footnote 26 31? Srnec (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's  , which somehow didn't get listed. It's there now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. I could have added it myself, but I thought I'd make sure the error was in not listing the source, not in the source used. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  User error, of course. thanks for catching it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert of Jumièges. 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/20081006223625/http://www.pindarpress.co.uk/catalogue/medieval-western/gem-architecture-vol2.htm to http://www.pindarpress.co.uk/catalogue/medieval-western/gem-architecture-vol2.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) 08:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It appears to me that some incorrect lowercase may have been installed in this edit. MOS:JOBTITLE says that titles are capitalized "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)".   might want to doublecheck these.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest? I quit fighting the de-cap police a while back as it's fruitless. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem :). Well, will put this in the MOS-warrior-not-worth-worrying-about basket then.  Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

text: SandyGeorgia, Robert is named in that sentence and is defined by his job title. The job title is not a substitute for anything. Surtsicna (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS:JOBTITLE