Talk:Medeshamstede

message: I don't know how the 'p' got in here, but it needs removing! It's a modern feature, not found in good primary sources, to which this inherently historical article must refer. I'd remove it now, if it weren't for the numerous links already leading here. I might get around to it, if no-one else does. Beyond that, this article needs some pretty serious attention. Nortonius (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Now you mention it, I have no idea of the acceptability of 'recte' (not an abbreviation, btw) in Wikipedia; but a good solution to the issues you raise would in any case make it redundant. Nortonius (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Brilliant work, I'm dead chuffed! Not just that it's been changed, but that you took on all that work, on the basis of my foot-stamping! An inspiration, surely...! Nortonius (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: It's 'Medeshamstede', not 'Medeshampstede'!

message: Chrisieboy, I notice that you've recently done some work on this article - great that someone's showing an interest! So, I hope you and previous editors won't be offended if I start doing some fairly major revision, now that the issue of the stray 'p' in 'Medeshampstede' has been sorted out. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I'm a Peterborian, but not an expert in this field so I very much value your contribution. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, thanks. Not Peterborian myself, and it's been years since I was last there - the highlight of my last visit was getting one of the Cathedral clergy to let me look at the supposed archaeological remains of Medeshamstede, under the floor of the crossing. :o) Nortonius (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: The article mentions a 12th century Hugh Candidus. We already have an article on Hugh of Remiremont, also known as Hugh Candidus who lived in the 11th century. Are they two individuals sharing a name or do we have a chronological mistake? Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a wonderful coincidence! But nothing more, I'm afraid. Hugh Candidus of Peterborough was a monk there, around the 3rd quarter of the 12th century, and his epithet 'Candidus' is not of contemporary origin. Nortonius (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugh Candidus 

message: You might notice that I've been involving myself in the Medeshamstede article since May 8 2008. I started a ball rolling by trying to get the name changed from "Medeshampstede" to "Medeshamstede", which was taken up and effected by Chzz; but obviously anything I do with it is on top of the previous input of others, and I've kept pretty much everything that was already there, though qualifying it where I felt it necessary.
As this article still needs a fair amount of work, I'd be grateful if any concerns or queries you might have are expressed here, or on my talk page, rather than through undoing any of my edits - until it looks like I've run out of steam, anyway! That might take a few days, or longer... For example, I'm aware that there are inconsistencies in the presentational styles of citations, but I won't consider myself done until I've straightened them out. (Pretty much done that) Obviously it's not up to me if you want to add anything yourself, though you might find me querying it here, or just diving straight in if it's a matter of basic spelling or grammar. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work In Progress 

message: Possibly a useful link;
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teWXo-Sl9hMC&pg=RA2-PA274&lpg=RA2-PA274&dq=hugh+candidus+peterborough&source=web&ots=xqQAv2zoha&sig=EgrChNlg5raj2-o_ylTrX6isbsc&hl=en  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - a very useful link, and there are a few things I could say about Gransden and Hugh Candidus; but a description of Hugh Candidus would belong under Peterborough Abbey, which doesn't actually have its own page - oh boy...! I can see a separate page for Peterborough Abbey (no, really?!), with what would be a longish section describing its written archive for the Anglo-Saxon period, it's wonderful stuff. A page on Peterborough Abbey wouldn't be too hard to do, but it would be fairly involved (and I'd only be any use covering the period 10th-12th century) - I'll pass on that for now... ;o) Nortonius (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re. Hugh 

message: Good to see that someone else is taking an interest, Nedrutland! As your new section indicates, there is more to say about this, so watch out for any edits I might make there!
*Maybe the section should be headed "Physical remains, archaeology", as most of what will hopefully be covered there will eventually be about archaeological stuff? I'll alter it to that, do say if you don't like it.
*The reference to Rosemary Cramp needs a citation - she might supersede the last thing I saw (sadly I forget where, but I'll probably find it again in due course), which said the date of the Hedda Stone was in dispute.
*The reference to Hugh Candidus will need some thought, as he was writing about this in the 12th century - but you're right to bring Wilfrid into this.
*I think we ought to avoid using the word "abbey" in this article, except in reference to the 10th century and later (e.g. Peterborough Abbey): "monastery" is generally used for similar English institutions prior to the 10th century, on the basis that, simplifying it a bit, early sources use "monasterium" or "mynster", and "abbey" ("abbatia") is only general in later sources ("abbodrice" is found earlier, but really it means "abbacy", which obviously is different); maybe also because we know very well what the later institutions were, but often can only theorise about exactly how earlier institutions were run. That's a little inconsistent, in that rulers of such early places are generally referred to as "abbots" - but there it is!
I'll do some editing on the new section now, have a look to see what you think. While I'm here, I'm pretty sure that the source that told you Durobrivae/Water Newton belonged to Peterborough is wrong: it belonged to Thorney Abbey in 1086 and later, and there's nothing that I know of to say it ever belonged to Medeshamstede/Peterborough before, so I'll be taking it out. If you find a reliable source that you can cite, and means it should go back in with a citation, feel free. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical remains; "abbey" 

message: I note a number of places where I would improve the punctuation. I will read a paper copy over the week-end and try to enter some edits next week. Question: is there a volume of the English Place Name Society on this area which might be useful? In a quick scan of the notes I did not see any mention. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good, thanks: I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Beware of my ongoing edits, obviously - I suppose that goes without saying! There is indeed an EPNS volume, but I don't have access to it - J. E. B. Gover, A. Mawer and F. M. Stenton, The Place-Names of Northamptonshire, EPNS 10. (Cambridge, 1933). Given their publication dates, presumably the source I have used, Ekwall, was aware of the EPNS volume. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This article would benefit from some re-writing - especially in the section "Monastic colonies" - to take into account Kelly, Susan E., Charters of Peterborough Abbey (Anglo-Saxon Charters 14), OUP, 2009. Kelly offers some striking new interpretations. Nortonius (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent source 

message: Re this diff, apologies to the editor concerned, I messed up using Twinkle and failed to save an edit summary - this was unintentional! Anyway, I reverted because the "daughter churches" would not have been acquired as a "group", and because the expression "daughter church" is normal, see "Mother Church". But, especially see the previous section here, "Recent source": if Susan Kelly's edition of Peterborough's Anglo-Saxon charters is taken into account here, the whole subject of Medeshamstede's "daughter churches" becomes deeply questionable, and so there's probably no point expending effort tinkering with it, when the chances are that it needs a thorough re-write. Hope that makes sense. Nortonius (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re recent edit/revert 

message: Substituted at 23:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment