Talk:Archdiocese of Vienne

Problem with list

The list of bishops here contradicts that in the French Wikipedia at fr:Liste des évêques et archevêques de Vienne (France)#Les évêques, puis archevêques. In particular, this English article has three bishops called Verus, where the French one has two. We need to fix this urgently, because a series of minor articles are coming through AfC on the individual bishops, and if we are going to accept them, we need to sort out some of the confusion. Right now I'm struggling with Draft:Verus of Vienne. So I hope there is somebody working here who knows their way around. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's an uninspiring article as it stands.

As the fr-Wiki article explains in detail, there are alternative lists of the earlier bishops, and the explanation for the discrepancy is that their list is presumably based on one and this list on another. The necessary references for an overhaul are on the fr-Wiki article. The early bishops of Vienne, real or otherwise, have been for years the subject of interest of an Australian IP editor whose GF enthusiasm is matched by their lack of knowledge of French and copy-editing (and the articles seem to be periodically re-submitted as the IP address changes), so the drafts need to be completely re-written, and this list completely revised, which will demand a lot of time. Since the early bishops are either clerical errors or virtually unknown, I've generally left the drafts alone, on the basis that even if straightened out they're not going to contribute much. If you feel this is urgent you're obvs free to tackle the variant lists. Ingratis (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ingratis, thanks for answering. To me, reviewing the bishop list is not urgent, because I suspect few readers will really be looking for detail on these minor historical figures. It would be good to sort it out eventually, but it is obviously complicated enough that I will leave it to the experts. What is slightly more urgent is deciding what to do with the drafts at AfC, because there are still half a dozen of them waiting there, and the danger is that half a dozen different AfC reviewers waste their time on them and make inconsistent decisions. This will be a problem at the latest in the next AfC backlog drive which will probably come in the next few months. So what should we do? Since these drafts are sourced and the topic is not non-notable, the rules don't actually allow us just to reject them, but they can't be accepted as they are, and rewriting ought to be done by someone who knows the material. Doric Loon (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC

Hi @Doric Loon: With a slightly heavy heart I'd be prepared to tackle the existing drafts, for the good reasons you give, but don't undertake always to deal with any others of this species that spring up - sorting them out takes (me, at any rate) a huge amount of time, and there are things I'd rather be doing: they have to be re-translated from fiddly French originals, and then, because the originals themselves are often quite cryptic, reinterpreted from the sources as well. But I've got my eye in, so will have a go. How many are there? I still have AFC rights (I think - I haven't used them for a long time) so can accept them myself once they're re-worked, or else leave them for you / asilvering. Ingratis (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ingratis: I take my hat off to you. I did Julian of Vienne on Tuesday and it took me all afternoon. (Do check it if you have a moment.) If you are really up for this, the remaining drafts I am aware of are: Draft:Simplice of Vienne, Draft:Paschase of Vienne, Draft:Claude of Vienne, Draft:Isicius of Vienne, Draft:Austrebert of Vienne, Draft:Eoaldus of Vienne, Draft:George of Vienne. If you don't find your AfC rights, just ping me when you have them ready. Doric Loon (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doric Loon: - That's a manageable number. It appears that I do still have AFC rights, but will keep you updated as I work through the drafts. I'll take a look at Julian of Vienne. Ingratis (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doric Loon: I've dealt with the drafts suggested. They are so bad, as you're aware, that the only real thing to do with them is to TNT and translate from scratch. Once that's done, it's then apparent, as I mentioned above, that most have very little actual content and are only suitable as redirects to a properly-structured list, which we don't have at present. If I spend any more time on the subject therefore it will be on improving the list; it's not worth attempting to rescue any other drafts by this editor. All best, Ingratis (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Ingratis, you've done a big job there and I'm sure the result is worthwhile. You are certainly right that not every medieval bishop warrants an article. But this is really good. Well done! Doric Loon (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)