Talk:Herman the Archdeacon

Potential illustrations

Hello,

Some of the manuscripts of Herman's Miracula have been digitised and are available online. It could be nice to have a page from either of them (or both!) in the article.

• Bibliothéque Nationale de France, MS Latin 2621 is here (the link points directly to the first page of the Miracula)
• British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius B. ii is here (the link points directly to the first page of the Miracula)

If I can find some spare time, I will put at least these first pages on Commons, but I will not mind if someone beats me to it. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a great idea, especially BL Tiberius B. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have uploaded both pages and added them to the article, feel free to tweak the captions or their position as you see fit. They are not the prettiest manuscripts ever produced, but it's always nice to have an idea of what our primary sources look like. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. They both improve the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi again

@Dudley Miles: There's no question that bishop of East Anglia should link to that article instead of a different one or that the article is better with the Latin title of the Latin work and its correct translation. What exactly are you objecting to? The correct grammar? The removal of needless parentheticals?

In any case, make the formatting revisions separately from the improvements, which you're also removing, presumably by accident/inattention. — LlywelynII 23:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted because linking to the bishop of East Anglia is an obvious error. It is a modern Roman Catholic diocese. The diocese now at Norwich goes back to Anglo-Saxon times and Herman is listed as one of its bishops. Benedictine is not supported in the main text. Historiology is the study of history and it is the wrong word here. The Latin translation is helpful and I have added it back in. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: You probably need to review WP:AGF. It was not an obvious error. Setting aside whether Catholic or Anglican dioceses claim greater or lesser antiquity, those articles mentioned nothing about their previous names in hatnotes or their lead which, if you know them to be obviously wrong and misleading, it would've been quite helpful for you to add. (Done. All that said, yeah, thanks for correcting the mistake.) The monks of Bury St Edmunds were Benedictines, unless that article also needs to note changes in their order. Historiology is the study of history... as written by historians... which seems to be what the text (awkwardly) is trying to convey. If it means something else, apologies, but that area could still use rewording to clarify that. I'll avoid saying obviously (see how it can be unpleasant?) but the Latin is the actual title; the English is the translation and it's slightly wrong... but, yeah, now the more common English form and that's fine, all things considered.

More importantly, if an anchor is marked as linked, that means it's linked by incoming redirects. You shouldn't remove them unless you're also changing the redirect(s) as well. The extra storage space on the servers is a nonfactor (they all stay preserved in the edit history anyway) and the extra loading time is negligible at human scales. — LlywelynII 21:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

1. It is usual and helpful to have all the alternative names before the dates, not the dates in the middle of the names. 2. You are very likely right that Herman was a Benedictine. The point is that the lead is a summary of the referenced main text, and the information is not in the main text. If you can find a ref for stating that Herman was a Benedictine and add it to the main text, then it would be fine to add it to the lead. 3. I have kept the WP:AGF. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)