Talk:Thomas Arundel

Worst

Can someone please add WHY Thomas Arundel was considered a "Worst Briton"?

Done! Megawattbulbman 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is obviously written with a strong anti-Catholic slant, I've given it an NPOV tag.

Where in particular? Have a go at editing it to add support to him and the church at the time. Better to light a candle..etc Dmanning 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs much work. -- SECisek 05:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Much work done. Removed the NPOV tag. -- SECisek 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More than one...

Wow. Founding Introversion Software and being Archbishop of Cantebury. Good on you, Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.236.82 (talk • contribs)

Heh. - AlKing464 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Arundel (archbishop) → Thomas Arundel — There is only one article called "Thomas Arundel". All the others at Thomas Arundel (disambiguation) are called "Arundell", double "l", except for his nephew, who is called "Thomas FitzAlan". — 87.114.157.71 (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Weak oppose. This seems excessive reliance on fifteenth-century spelling. He is doubtless spelled both ways, and we should have Thomas Arundell (archbishop) as a redirect. I would entertain a suggestion that he is the best-known man of his name, however, so my opposition is only weak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that Arundel or Arundell is a fifteenth-century spelling? I believe that Arundel is dominant spelling nowadays, and the archbishop is the primary meaning of "Thomas Arundel". Srnec (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Both are fifteenth century spellings; but you may well be right that Arundel is now dominant for the archbishop. It's all the same family, though, and we should make that clear, probably in the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've modified the hatnote, and the lead of the dab page, to clarify that the dab page includes Arundells. PamD (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support moving the archbishop to plain Thomas Arundel: he's certainly the primary usage, and the only page with that title. A hatnote to point to the dab page will mop up any stray visitors who want "Thomas Arundell" or "Thomas... Earl of Arundel". I've only been watching him for a few days, but my head is spinning - I update the Archbishops templates, find he's moved again in a few hours... we've all got better things to be doing. PamD (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, see above. Srnec (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support move: In agreement, Thomas Arundel (the archbishop) is primary usage and unambiguous. A dab page for the Arundell's will be a more logical outcome. There is text at the top of the article already pointing to a disambiguation page, so the move wouldn't clutter anything up. Maedin\^talk 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I really don't CARE where it ends up, I just want it to quit playing musical chairs. Someone just moved it to this page on the 18th of September, and I finally got some of the redirects cleaned up, and then it moved back to where it was in June... there are too many pages that link to this (He was a busy man!) to keep moving it around. Let's settle on a page, make sure it's well marked on the talk page and leave it there. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I moved it from Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury to Thomas Arundel (archbishop). The move away from Thomas Arundel happened already in June. Fram (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, Fram. I wasn't so much complaining about either the June or the Sept move, just the newest move coming right on the heels of the Sept move, and moving BACK to where it was before the June move. It's very annoying to fix redirects, over and over, only to watch the article go in a circle. It's not any of the movers fault, it's just let's not start a new round? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

so WP removed my new section..

censorship in an article that blame censorship.. --80.117.217.108 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not "Thomas FitzAlan"?

Why does he not take his father's surname of FitzAlan? He uses the FitzAlan arms in the portrait, the Latin inscription on which calls him "Thomas FitzAlan". What is the reason he is known as Arundel, his father's title? If there is a reason it should probably be mentioned in the article, else maybe moved to a new page name.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No clue, but it's pretty much universal to use Arundel not FitzAlan. Handbook of British Chronology, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the old DNB, the Catholic Encyclopedia... they all use Arundel. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Further ... the Fasti Ecclesiae uses Arundell. And so does the Anglican Communion site. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)