Talk:William Warelwast

message: Hello, Ealdgyth, another fine article! But that link to Exeter Cathedral has now been added by two independent editors (I didn't notice the first addition/removal) and you've removed it twice. Can I suggest that a link to Exeter Cathedral is needed in the final section: it's not as if it's barely relevant, and if a reader (like me) who is interested in the Exeter aspect jumps down to that section, he would expect to be able to get to the Cathedral article from there. I counter your WP:OVERLINK with WP:REPEATLINK :) I do agree with you that the easter egg aspect should be avoided, though. Could you reword slightly and include a link?  —SMALLJIM  14:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just linked in the lead, it's also in the lead picture caption. The article isn't so long that I'm thinking it's that hard to find the link in the picture caption (which is of the cathedral). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think there should be a link in that last section for the convenience of readers, but I don't want to argue with you about it, and I don't edit war. Nor is there any rush. Let's see what others think who come across this...A open question: should there be a link to Exeter Cathedral in the last section of the article, even though there are already two links to it at the top of the article? Note that this section, Work as bishop, refers to Warelwast's work as bishop of that cathedral, so it is highly relevant.  —SMALLJIM  16:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably put one in, but it's a very minor issue. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) says it's fine if the second (third) link is a "long" way from the first. It's maybe not a long distance away, but then again you may want to take into account that's it's from the lead you're comparing. Plus it's a small article, so relative to its size, it's a "long" way. Jolly Ω Janner 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  That link to Exeter Cathedral 

message: What does "(Warelwast 1024)" in the first note mean? I assume it means that there is a record of the name "Warelwast" for the place of Véraval dating from the year 1024. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. Ask , who added the information back with this series of edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the common way to note the oldest regular mention recorded in a document. You are perfectly true. Concerning the other and later mentions, you can find them in Charles A. de Beaurepaire, Dictionnaire topographique de la Seine-Maritime comprenant les noms de lieux anciens et modernes. Only found in libraries, like here . I do not own it, unfortunatly. The W spelling is typical northern French means G(u) in "central" French (parisian common French), the W pronounciation [w] changed to [v] in "septentrional" Norman along the 12th century and is now spelled V. So from Warel- to Vera- the shift is quite regular, but the end -wast is corrupted in -val by attraction of the French word val "valley", probably because the word wast "devastated land, wasted land, bad land" was not understood anymore in Upper Normandy, but in the Cotentin region the word was still alive until recently and we find it in Martinvast (Martinwast, Martin Wasto 1150), Sottevast (Sotewast 12th), Tollevast (Tollewast 12th), etc. The English word waste is from Norman and corresponds to modern French gâter (OF g(u)aster) "waste". This word is from Latin vastus, influenced by the Frankish word *wosti "desert" (G Wüste). Can you explain the meaning (Warelwast 1024) in the article if it is not clear for other persons. You will do it better than me. Slt. Nortmannus (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: There is no known date of birth, or it can't be sourced? ~ihaveamac [talkcontribs] 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No source has a guess on a date. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's too bad. He did die in 1137 so I guess it makes sense. ~ihaveamac [talkcontribs] 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: If Bishop Warelwast was the first to divide the diocese into archdeaconries there is a conflict with the Archdeaconry of Exeter article where William is listed as archdeacon before Robert. Archdeaconry of Cornwall has three early archdeacons listed; this was also in the Diocese of Exeter from the late 11th century. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more impressed if any of those articles actually had citations for those archdeacons. We're hampered by the fact that there is no Fasti volume for 1066-1300 for Exeter. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

text: also note that this article states "It was not until late in his bishopric that the diocese was split into multiple archdeaconries, which appears to have happened in 1133." - so apparantely there were some archdeacons - just not more than one at a time. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Roland the archdeacon is recorded in Domesday Book as holding land in Cornwall. Here is a *: RolandThorn, Caroline & Frank (eds.) (1979) Domesday Book. 10: Cornwall. Chichester: Phillimore Gulval was held by Roland (2,10) and he is called Archdeacon Roland in the index of persons. (The book has no pagination.) The text here is based on Abraham Farley's edition; The Exeter Domesday sometimes has additional information not found in the Exchequer DB. Possibly Devon could have had another archdeacon: the Archdeacon of Barnstaple article suggests it existed at an early date.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archdeaconries