Talk:List of archbishops of Canterbury

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Ideas to brighten-up the list 

message: Comments: Looks very good and almost ready.
#ALT text, checklinks and dablinks tests passed.
#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.
#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.
#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?
#How about the availability of images of the archbishops on wikipedia/commons? Could they fill an image column?
#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TFL comments

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:AbpRandallDavidson.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  English Archibishop 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified