Talk:Hugh de Mapenor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hugh de Mapenor has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 10, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 21, 2009.


Even though it's not entirely the same thing, ought "Magister" to be linked to Magister officiorum, to give readers at least some idea of what the title implies? The title in the post-Roman west isn't actually mentioned in the Magister officiorum article other than a brief "The office was retained in Ostrogothic Italy after the fall of the Western Roman Empire", but it would at least provide some context; it's reasonable to assume that the typical reader's reaction will be "what the hell is a magister?", while those who do have a knowledge of mediaeval titles will likely assume it refers to Master of the Horse. If not linked, it probably warrants an explanatory footnote. – iridescent 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm away from my books right now, but magister here isn't anything like the office. It means that the person was educated, think Master of Arts, which is what the title evolved into. I can footnote it when I get home to the books. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh de Mapenor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

general points[edit]

I will undertake this review. Ealdgyth, i waited a couple of weeks but no one else had jumped in, so once again i'm looking at bishops.

The article is neutral, stable, generally well written. The only image used is in order, though it seems slightly strange to have it in a location where I would normally expect a picture of the individual in question. i presume this is because no such image is available, but would you even so consider making this an image in the text rather than the infobox? Just a thought.

Generally, I've put the non-person image in the infobox on all the bishops/archbishop's I've done. Check Gilbert Foliot for another that has a building in the infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

detailed points[edit]

  • For both King John of England and King Henry III of England, the word "King" is excluded from the wikilink, which reads strangely to me. Is there a particular reason for this?
Mainly because our articles are at John of England and Henry III of England, and I prefer to not link the extraneous info and pipe.
I raised this after doing some of Tony's exercises, where for readability he encourages piped linking in exactly such a case, so the full title is part of the link, and I agree. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
All power to Tony, but I disagree. "King" is just a title, would you link all of "Mr. Tony Blair"? I don't think so, so to be consistent, I'll stick with not linking the title. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I don't agree in terms of readability and practice: readability, in that people generally think (and therefore read) words like King and Queen as part of a name rather than thinking of them as a title; and practice, in that one would seldom see Tony Blair's title (Mr) actually used. But those are just my views. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "During his time at Hereford, he was the subject of the Prose Salernitan Questions, which compared his sexual powers to three other clerks." I'm sorry, but this extraordinary remark can't just be let by in such a deadpan way. Was this a satirical pamphlet? A humorous work? Reproduced widely? And how did he stack up in the comparision? It really is too bald (ribald?) as it stands. :-)
This is the only information I've been able to uncover about this work. I'm guessing it survives, but probably only in manuscript (i.e. it's not yet been printed). This work seems to apply to some form of it, but I've yet to be able to run down a copy to explore it further in detail. By searching in Google books, I get these snippets, that don't seem to greatly expand on what is already in the article. (note that the third snippet, discussing Hugh of St Victor is a different Hugh than the one we're talking about here.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "the cathedral chapter was excomunicate ..." Can a few words be added to clarify exactly what that means in this context?
Basically, it means that John was looking for a loophole, as if the chapter was excommunicate, they weren't able to validly elect someone. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Your reply above generously assumed i was an intermediate level student, but i was back at Religious Language 101 - i just had never seen the word excommunicate as a noun before, and also I have only ever understood the concept to be applied to an individual, so i wasn't sure what it meant for a church / organisation. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you need more explanation or is what is in the article enough? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a good question. I humemd and hah-ed and thought it was probably fine with the wikilink and the text tweak. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "was given as alms for the souls..." I thought a charter was a document. That being the case, how could giving it to someone be alms? And who was it given to?
  • I've clarified it a bit, the charter documented a license that Mapenor gave to Leominster Priory (which is a redlink..) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Footnotes 1 and 3 treat the two Barrow publications differently - one uses author name, the other not. I think in this system they should be Barrow (2002a) and Barrow (2002b), both in the notes and the references list.
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, as usual looks very clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm now ticking this article off. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll be home Wed and able to fix these then. Thanks for taking this! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)