Talk:Wulfstan (died 1023)

message: The homily spellings De Anticristo and De Antichristo are both present in the article, the second spelling in the sentence immediately following a sentence using the first. While both to be valid spellings per sources, is there a reason to keep both spellings within the article? -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say go with the first spelling. I didn't add that section though, so I'm not sure which is the typo, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In her edition of Wulfstan's homilies, Bethurum follows the the spelling "De Anticristo" according to the rubric for this homily found in a manuscript known as Junius 121 (Bethurum's MS G). This is the only manuscript which supplies a rubric for this homily. It seems good practice to cite the homily according to the title as Bethurum printed it . Further, many of the Wulfstan manuscripts read 'Cristus', without the 'H' (a Graecism). This was likley the spelling that Wulfstan himself preferred.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''De Anticristo'' 

message: I reworded this back to the previous statement, as a statement that he was second only to another writer needs supporting statements from a number of sources to back it up, and I didn't see any sourcing for that. It probably shouldn't even state "considered one of the two major writers" since I don't think that's sourced in the article either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second only to ...

message: The dates in the article come from either the 3rd edition of the Handbook of British Chronology or from his ONDB entry. If there are newer sources for dates, change them out but please source that. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Just wanted to say what amazing work has been done on this article that I started years ago when I noticed confusion about different Wulfstansm and tried to clear it up. Not in my wildest dreams could I think that there would be so much to say about him. :) --Regebro (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing 

message: I think the works section has grown enough to require splitting off into a Works of Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York article. If no one objects, I'll try to work that around at some point. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Works

message: Why the discrepancy? Why is consecration listed as 1002, but enthroned as "unknown"? What's the diffeence between these two actions?Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consecration is the ... well... consecrating of the bishop/archbishop. Enthroned is the actual formal sitting of the new bishop/archbishop in his cathedral. They often do not coincide. Note that I'm not really in charge of the infoboxes. If I had my choice, we'd use "elected" but, that's me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enthroned vs Consecration. 

message: The article contains information without a citation and unresolved original research tags. Does it still meet the GA criteria? (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with GA criteria 

message: It is noted in several other articles (see Wulfstan (died 956), Wulfstan (died 1095), and Archbishop of York) that this Wulfstan was also known as Wulfstan II, but that fact is not mentioned anywhere here. Additionally, this fact is not cited in any of those three articles, so it would be nice this could be cleaned up a bit. Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He is rarely called Wulfstan II, but I have found a reference for the name. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wulfstan II