Talk:Ealdred (archbishop of York)

message: In regards to Ealdgyth asking me to look over the article, I have a few queries, and grammatical suggestions. I'm holding off on actually editing the article for copyedits because I want approval, don't want to change meanings and am horrible about English English (I have no idea if "defendor" is correct or not :P). Anyhow:
::: (Defendor is probably a misspelling of mine... oops!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks very much! THis is the sort of things that I need, since this is the period of time I know backwards and forwards, I put all the context in... will get to this probably this afternoon or tommorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Pictures of Ealdred seems to be scarce. I have located one (here: http://www.lookandlearn.com/history-images/M815220/The-Death-of-Aldred-Archbishop-of-York-1069?img=0&search=Death%20of%20Aldred) but I am not sure if it is allowed for commercial use... --62.220.191.221 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a 19th century imaginary image of what might have happened - as such, it's going to be misleading to put it in as the artist had no idea what Ealdred looked like. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Ealdred 

message: I removed the  hatnote as it was unnecessary. A hatnote is only needed if readers are likely to get to the page but want another similarly titled one. This can happen if the article title is ambiguous: "Cat" has many meanings but the article at Cat is about the feline, so needs a hatnote. But the article title here is quite precise. Or it can happen if a redirect to the article is ambiguous.
This used to be true here, as Aldred redirected to this article, the result of an earlier page move. But the disambiguation page is a better target for that as there's no obvious primary (if anything the modern Aldred's such as Sophie Aldred and Scott Aldred are more likely to be sought by readers) and I changed it earlier today. Without that pointing at this article a reader should not end up here looking for another, so a hatnote is not needed. The guideline on this is at WP:NAMB.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And so .. what does the hatnote hurt though? There may be people that came here looking for something, and didn't find the Ealdred/Aldred that they were looking for. I don't see what the hatnote hurts if it helps even that one person.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They could come here for all sorts of reasons, looking for all sorts of things. Some other Archbishop of York, or Worcester, for example, or some entirely unrelated article. The hatnote is not there to cover all such possibilities, but only very likely cases, where the article title itself or a redirect to it is ambiguous. The hatnote position and emphatic styling is so it can't be missed, on the assumption that many or most readers will want to use it. For just one person it's much too excessive.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The ambiguous terms "Aldredus" and "Ealdred (bishop)" still redirect here. If you want to fix all those links and then redirect those terms to the dab page, I wouldn't have a problem removing the hatnote. Otherwise, leave it. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: In the lead we say William never quite trusted Ealdred but in the Legacy section Ealdred was one of a few native Englishmen who William appears to have trusted. Probably it's a question of degree but we do seem to be leaning in different directions.
For the date of his ceasing to be Bishop (or Administrator) of Hereford, we have 1060 in Diplomatic travels section and succession box but 1061 in the Welsh affairs, Jerusalem, and Worcester section. This may be complicated by the question of when the new year started in those days.--Cavrdg (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight inconsistencies 

message: I know this article made featured, so clearly lots of people think it's fine, but I think the photo in the infobox is totally unrelated to the article's content, and might even be misleading. I'm not going to change anything, because it's featured and I trust others more than myself, but I definitely feel the need to comment about it somewhere. 2601:643:8100:2921:7DCE:2E12:776C:240F (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant photo in infobox