Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 21:20, 4 January 2015 [1].

List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset[edit]

List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset to FL and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane this is the next in the series (the third of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available.— Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pipe link to Cluniac Reforms. Looks very good but does the column with the info in have to be so skinny?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done Cluniac Reforms, but I'm not sure which column are you seeing as skinny? If its the "Notes" column it is wide on my screen (I use large monitors). The width of the columns is not set & (I presume) autoformatted depending on your monitor. When I started this set of lists I was asked to add in the notes column, rather than make the reader go to the article for more info.— Rod talk 21:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On my monitor the notes column has a new line for every two or three words, making it look stretched vertically.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?— Rod talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Setting the column width doesn't seem to make any difference - this may be because of Template:EH listed building header. Asking for help there.— Rod talk 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing the width at 20% would make the column narrower on my setup, where it currently occupies about 25% of the width of the table. In any case, I don't think this a a FL issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same as Dr. Blofeld and also have to scroll table right/left as too wide as it stands. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now confused. On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is no real solution to this one at the moment, not really a sticking point for the promotion of this list. May be worth discussing this on a wider forum to see if anyone has any ideas how to improve things. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Shall I start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates as I'm not aware of any other discussion forum for list layout issues - the MOS & tables guidance don't seem to help as far as I can see.— Rod talk 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point on ref 3 the "retrieved" needs capitalising as per other references. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Fixed.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "current legislation" - this is recentism, which is frowned on.
  • Removed (and I will do it on the other 6 where I have used this).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muchelney Abbey, which was founded in the 7th or 8th century," The source says 762. In the full entry below you have date as 12-16C, and 7C in the text.
  • Pastcape at [2] says thought to be founded 762 and remains of 8C church have been found. I think you can say 8C - definitely not 7th. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised to "probably" 8th century.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stoke sub Hamdon Priory was formed in 1304 as a chantry college rather than a priory." I found this - and the full entry below - confusing. It says below secular college, but neither word is used in the usual modern sense. Looking at the EH entry, secular means priests in the community as opposed to monks in a monastery, and college in this case means a group of secular priests attached to a chantry chapel. A clearer explanation would be helpful.
  • I have reorded this (and shortened it in the light of the column width discussion above).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cary Castle was built either by Walter of Douai or by his son Robert." Perhaps worth saying around 1100 - presumably it was definitely pre-Anarchy.
  • I've added "late 11th or early 12th century" as that is what the Pastscape source says - I don't there is any better evidence for the date.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bruton Abbey was originally founded as a Benedictine priory by Algar, Earl of Cornwall in about 1005." This is dubious. Pastscape says: "According to Leland, it was formerly a Benedictine Monastery founded circa 1005, but there is no mention of such in the Domesday Survey." Algar, Earl of Cornwall does not sound like an early 11C title.
  • The mentions of Algar all seem to be 19C sources, including BH online. I doubt whether the earldom of Cornwall existed before the Conquest and Earl of Cornwall says the same. You could say may have existed before the Conquest, but I don't think anything more definite. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find lots more sources for Algar of Cornwal - although it appears there may be some debate about his title. This book (from 1769) says "ALGER Earl of Cornwall, AD 1046 founded the abbey of Bruton. There seem to have been several people named Ælfgar in the 10th & 11th centuries & other variations on the name. Gazeter 1868 says "About the year 1005 a monastery was founded here by Algar, Earl of Cornwall, for monks of the Benedictine order, which was subsequently converted into a Dominican priory by William do Mohun." This recent book (2011) mentions Earl Ælfgar in association with manors in Somerset. I think it is verifiable in its current form, but would welcome further comment. One last thought is that Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia may have held (or claimed) other titles & could possibly be the person concerned. There may also be some confusion based on: "The Laud Chronicle (E) — 1048 [1051] "And then Odda was appointed earl over Devon, and over Somerset, and over Dorset, and over Cornwall; and Aelfgar, earl Leofric's son, was given the earldom which Harold had had." I don't really know where else to go with this.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at [3] the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised as you suggested. Help with ensuring the actual article at Bruton Abbey reflects the sources would be appreciated.— Rod talk 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowl barrow known as `Wimble Toot'" Shown as Bronze Age even though latest research suggests it is Norman. "The interpretation of the site's original purpose has changed over time." This sentence is superfluous. Repetition of "originally".
  • Revised & I've put the date as Bronze Age or Norman as I think the jury is still out on this one.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamdon Hill camp. I think it should be made clear that the evidence of mesolithic and neolithic occupation pre-dates the camp and has nothing to do with it.
  • Hillfort 475m south of Howley Farm. Repetition of univallate.
  • The final item "Village Cross" is out of alphabetical order.
  • Thanks again for spotting these. Further advice or discussion on the Muchelney Abbey and Bruton Abbey issues would be helpful.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Concerned that, what, 49 of the 69 items don't have an article, particularly when some of those actually do have an image. If they're notable enough for images they should have an article. There's really no excuse for a list like this to have so few linked articles. It's also unlikely that the names you've given to the redlinked articles will be those we would use....
  • I will continue to look at the red links and try to ensure that they point to something which would be used for a wp article however, where they are something like "Bowl barrow 110 m south west of Spittle Pond Cottages" it is difficult as the article needs to include "bowl barrow" and there may be dozens in a parish/district. I would appreciate guidance about whether plain black text can be used instead of red links? I feel they all need to be included for the list to be comprehensive, but I've never seen any discussion about whether all scheduled monuments are inherently notable and therefore should have articles, however many of these would be stubs as the only source is the English Heritage listing as they have never been explored in any detail. A sample statement from a scheduling document " The bowl barrow 110m south west of Spittle Pond Cottages survives well and will contain archaeological remains and environmental evidence relating to the monument and the landscape in which it was constructed." - so we know it exists however it is the potential for archeological evidence which means it is scheduled. For many of the bowl barrows etc all we have is dimensions and this would not make a full article. Does the fact that a photograph has been taken of the site increase its notability? I was interested in the Op-ed in Signpost - Red links, blue links, and erythrophobia about the advantages of red links, but would welcome further discussion or guidance here as several of the other list of scheduled monuments I am working on have even higher proportions of red links.— Rod talk 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rod, thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't have a clear answer. I understand that there's an inherent notability to those items in the list without an article, and I understand that you're using the "official" titles of the items, but it seems to me that, at a first guess, if nothing links to the red links you create and if the red links you create are unlikely search terms (first is objective, second is purely subjective, granted) then it's probably a black link for me. Just to be clear, I won't oppose the nomination whichever way you go, but it's certainly worth a centralised discussion I suppose, for the listed buildings and monuments that have no articles yet have no chance of ever being found because of the obscurity of their official names.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some into black links (mostly obscure barrows) where I don't think they would meet notability. In other cases (particularly deserted medieval villages and roman house earthworks) I have added something to the village article & directed the link from the title to that article. I'm currently working on Haselbury Bridge and will do a few others where they are clearly notable enough to have their own article (still red on the list). There have been previous discussions about listed buildings & the consensus seemed to be that Grade I & Grade II* are definately notable in their own right because of their recognised historical or architectural interest - Grade II to be dealt with on an individual basis. I will start a discussion on the talk page of Scheduled monument to see if others with interests in the same areas see them all as inherently notable, simply because English Heritage has advised the minister to scheduled them.— Rod talk 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most recent monuments include the Round House, a village lock-up in Castle Cary dating from 1779." seems like an incomplete sentence...
  • Hope I've caught these now.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use non-breaking spaces between values and their units.
  • Again I hope I've caught all of these now.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Ballands Castle) Consider using the {{convert}} template, which gives you the non-breaking spaces for free (I think) and will allow non-Imperial unit readers to understand.
  • Convert used.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "`Wimble Toot'" non-matching apostrophes.
  • "hillfort" or "hill fort"?
  • I've standardised on hillfort for consistency as bot seem equally acceptable.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".5 metres" dunno, but I usually expect a leading 0 here in Brit Eng.
  • "earthworks within the" consistency: "Earthworks..."
  • I found one of these & fixed - are there any others I can't see?— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a six pipe" -> "a six-pipe"
  • C of "Norman Conquest" appears to be no longer capitalised by Wikipedia.
  • OK I didn't know that had changed, now revised.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "motte and bailey" needs hyphenation.
  • Hopefully all done.— Rod talk 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, nice to see a practical approach to some of the monuments, I don't suppose that even many inclusionists would agree that we need an article about a "A bowl barrow approximately 16 metres (52 ft) in diameter and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is at least one inconsistent date in the refs, so it may be worth just checking to make sure they are all formatted correctly. – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed a few using a script. Are there any others I've missed?— Rod talk 09:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. As to the proposed discussion on the contents, which was mooted earlier today, I suggest the FLC page would be a good place to go in the first instance, with notifications in the appropriate projects. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Scheduled_Monuments_in_South_Somerset/archive1&oldid=640995377"