Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent Changes[edit]

I did some major organizational stuff and talking around today. I hope that this helps put some momentum on the project. If you have any changes, or I left anything out, please feel free to contact me. Also, I requested help from WP:History on the 1.0 assessment stuff, hopefully that gets up soon. When it does I will use WP:AutoWikiBrowser to add project tags to pages. Sadads (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything that forwards the aims and objectives of the project is all good in my book. This is my first WikiProject, so I'm finding my way. Obviously a lot of the items listed need to be agreed by consensus once enough editors have signed up.Metabaronic (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest just writing things, and if one of us has a disagreement bringing it up on the talk. Do you have any suggestions for the first collaboration? We should pick something rather frequently traveled but not so large that we have to reassess the previous writing and research. Sadads (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure we have a quorum yet, but everything looks good to me so far. I am currently working Mercia, don't know that I'll get it to FA or anything by myself, but I was planning on just bringing things up incrementally.Revcasy (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Projects that need work and define the boundaries of the project might be good starting points. For example, Hereward the Wake needs a lot of cleaning up, needs history from myth to be disaggegated, and will be a useful marker to define the end of the period covered.Metabaronic (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a good plan to me. Another good boundary article might be De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, at the other end of the time line, and equally in need of attention. Revcasy (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest going earlier into sub-roman England. That period does not have any group covering, and probably will not and the extended vacuum left by Roman departure definitely is the cause of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I suggest that we take any article not primarily associated with the Romans or the Normans during the period covered within the article History of Anglo-Saxon England. That way we can get Sub-Roman Britain, the Danelaw and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, with a focus on the Anglo-Saxons in collaborations and task forces etc. Narrowing too much, makes the project a little too hard to recruit for and maintain active members. Sadads (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae falls under sub-roman England, which started around 410 and is already within the scope of the project, so should be added as a potential task force.Metabaronic (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added Sub-Roman England to the task force list. The related category covers sub-roman Britain, and could do with the addition of sub-categories for sub-roman England, Scotland and Wales.Metabaronic (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you include the Battle of Ethandun on the 'Priority articles to improve' list? The current description is somewhat rambling! Also the main body of current opinion favours Edington, Wiltshire as the site of the battle, they seem to have given equal weight to other possible sites. As you know Anglo Saxon history is full of possibles and probables! Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Banner, and assessment[edit]

Got talk page banner running, go ahead and start tagging. That is one of the more important things, it both gets our name out and helps us figure out exactly what we have to work with. I was going to try to do tagging with AWB but it is pulling a really huge list from the category that includes a bunch of contemporary topics which I am trying to solve by reorganizing categories. Sadads (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Remember that some contemporary topics will need to be covered eg. Mercian Way and Forest of Mercia.Metabaronic (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I fixed the categorization problems, will try to filter stuff that doesn't actually belong to the project through AWB adding of the Banner, but we can do that while assessing too. Will take me a couple of days to do because I have to go through each step manually. Sadads (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Also as we physically assess we should be keeping an eye out for articles that ought to be deleted/merged to something else because of Notabilility. Sadads (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe South Saxons should be merged into Kingdom of Sussex. This was proposed originally I believe in 2007. I think it has been long enough for a consensus to emerge =). I will look into this as time allows—the two articles are not particularly long (or well referenced), but I've never merged two articles before, so help or suggestions would be welcome.Revcasy (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Supported at the discussion. Metabaronic (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Finished AWB sweep of Category:Anglo-Saxon England, the other categories either do not fall wholly under our control, or were included in. Sadads (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Banner issues have been raised by User talk:Johnbod at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages. The concerns are valid, and raise the following questions:

  • When do WPASK banners appear at the top of a list of banners?: I propose that any list of banners should be ordered first according to importance, and secondly in alphabetical order.

Some articles are inappropriately tagged. I'll add that as a section on the banner page.Metabaronic (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While I have not worked nearly as hard as others at adding the banners, I have always put them at the bottom (I think). That said, the user who raised the concern seems a little over-sensitive about minor organizational issues. The order in which the banners appear has no practical effect on their function, which is simply an internal organizational, or meta-level tool. I can understand the desire he expressed that they be nested using WikiProjectBannerShell template when there are more than two or three banners on a talk page, as it is then a matter of reducing clutter. However, if User talk:Johnbod has some grand organizational scheme in mind when it comes to project banners, then perhaps he should take it upon himself to put it in place, or perhaps lobby for some sort of Wikipedia policy on the subject. I am aware of no established policy as things stand, and if I start re-arranging banners where will it end??? Besides, "Anglo-Saxon" is pretty close to the beginning of alphabetical order surely? In cases like this of disputes with users who seem to live under a bridge or overpass of some sort, I like to take the (entirely appropriate) attitude, "You can argue all you like, but in the end I am still smarter." It has the advantage of resolving the dispute as far as I am concerned, and then they also get to go about their business of dealing with trespassing goats. Revcasy (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
These kind of disputes just need to be diffused, as Revcasy points out it is kindof petty. The reason why the banner is at the top is because I was running through the pages really quickly on WP:AutoWikiBrowser, I left an edit comment when I added them, for people to report mistakes to my talk during the en-mass addition. Most editors will get what was happening by reading the edit comment and either delete innappropriate tags or do whatever minor reorginization needs to be done on the talk page, so I wasn't too concerned. I can take any other problem reports on the banner as well if need be. Sadads (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no dispute, there was just one grumpy comment. No harm in letting people know we do respond to issues raised.Metabaronic (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you are still at it, so I'm still grumpy. [1]. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Englisc Wicipǣdia[edit]

I've added a section on the Englisc Wicipǣdia to highlight the importance of a relationship between this project and that wiki - I did consider putting it as a sister link, but felt its importance may be greater. It might be useful for any Old English speaking members of this WikiProject to look at crosspromotion of the two and looking into linking articles with translations.Metabaronic (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Importance Guideline[edit]

Maybe we should develop some sort of guideline for assessing the importance of articles. It seems obvious that all of the kingdoms of the heptarchy should be given "Top" importance ratings—and the heptarchy itself for that matter(or should it?). What about the minor sub-kingdoms or tribes that were later absorbed? What about the article on Bede? What about the article on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles? What about kings? Should all the kings be given equal importance ratings? Or should Alfred the Great be given "Top", Penda of Mercia "High", and so on? I realize that it is a subjective judgement, but some sort of rough guideline might be helpful, and keep us all on the same page. Revcasy (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you compare Alfred with someone like "Æthelred the Unready" for example? Probably both equally significant but for completely the opposite reasons! My view is that the kings who significantly built what became "England" such as Æthelstan, Edgar and Alfred should be rated "Top". On that basis someone like Cædwalla of Wessex would rate as "Top" because he was responsible for initiating the campaign of conquest and merger that resulted in a unified England, however Æthelred would be rated "high" as he did the opposite. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
My rule of thumb always is:
  1. If they are always covered in undergrad college courses or textbooks dealing with the period they are Top
  2. High = usually covered
  3. Mid = probably not covered
  4. Low = trivial topic that very few specialist would know
I always try to think like a college professor when doing this, it allows me to write the curriculum from the project's perspective. May also want to compare to other projects systems like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic. Fortunately, this is not set in stone. There is no way we will be able to cover all of the most important aspects of the scholarship. So just rate each thing, and if you come across one which you disagree with just change it. Not too important. Sadads (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I slightly disagree, as something can be highly significant but not covered greatly by a college courses. From a Mercian perspective, I'd put Penda of Mercia as Top priority not because of his coverage in college courses but because of his pre-eminence during his reign and because of the significance of his impact on the ultimate formation of the kingdom. Similarly Æthelbald and Offa are Top and Wulfhere may be Top or High. I also feel that legendary figures like Beowulf, Godiva and Hereward merit top status because of their legacies.Metabaronic (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
My own suggestion would be that there should be many fewer Top articles than High; I think if you make Godiva Top you'll have hundreds of Top articles. But I agree with Sadads that it's not too important to have a rigorous definition; we could just describe it as "core" topics for a class, and leave it at that. Practically speaking, since most readers won't ever interact with the project, the value of the importance rating is only if we decide to use it to prioritize articles to work on. Mike Christie (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why there would be hundreds of top articles like Godiva as there are very few significant Anglo-Saxon myths/legends. Godiva as a noble alone would be Low importance. My point is that the importance of articles has to cut across all project areas.Metabaronic (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
True; I just meant that if Godiva is Top, then thirty or forty kings probably are too, and twenty or more bishops, and most of the archbishops, and so on. I think it would be fine to restrict "Top" to the main kingdoms and a couple of historical overview articles, and perhaps a dozen individuals beyond that. Mike Christie (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just found this project, so my comments may have missed the boat. Simple written criteria for article importance and class are urgent and should be readily accessible to editors. Some projects (eg WPMILHIST) include simple checklists in their banners as a guide (see Talk:Offa's Dyke). Also see WPHERTS and WPCities projects for their importance criteria. This needs to be agreed asap to avoid backtracking, even if it's just a simple outline. Howabout: Top - fundamental to an understanding of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, eg Heptarchy Anglo-Saxon; High - an important element of the Kingdoms eg Mercia, Danelaw, Edward the Confessor; Medium - wholly relevant to the project (eg, Offa's Dyke, Anglo-Saxon London); Low - article only partially relevant or on a subject of only local interest (eg, North Elmham). Not great, I know, but a start and can be refined with use. Class criteria are more important since they are a guide to the completeness and reliability of an article and have elements that are common throughout Wiki. Sorry to preach, but most projects I've worked with have gone this route. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that simple solutions are always the best. This looks reasonably easy to understand, I like it! For the most part I think would be easy to make work,but I repeat my original question, How would you compare Alfred(the Great) with someone like "Æthelred the Unready"? Not a trick question, some kings for example have no particular merit and have not figured much in history, whereas others are giants amongst men. Æthelred and Alfred both played important roles in history, one for giving into the Danes the other for beating them. So do we rate the same? Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The Project is titled Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, so Kings and Kingdoms generally need the highest priority.The Kingdoms of the Heptarchy are fixed and sit atop a category tree, so I argue that they would be Top importance. Regarding Kings, this is really an argument between importance in historical context (prioritising the well-documented) vs, importance in understanding the subject matter (prioritising those focused on key events). Both Alfred and Æthelred stand out in both matters, so both would be Top importance as key figures. With other Kings I'd say High importance for those who we have a historical accounts of, Mid- for those who we know existed but have little information about, and Low- for those who only appear in genealogies.Metabaronic (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this; particularly the part about prioritizing the well-documented. In a perfect world the leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settler groups (for example) would have Top importance, but it would be a shame to give that kind of importance to a topic that we have little or no information about beyond a name in a kings list. For this reason, I think it's important that we be cautious about assigning importance to an article if we are unsure how much information is actually available about the topic it covers. If nothing else, the importance + quality ratings given to an article by various wiki projects affects the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment process. For example, I am in the (long) process of writing and improving the article on Günther Blumentritt, and I have run up against the problem that no full length biography has ever been written about him, and thus the article itself is almost certainly the most extensive source for his life (in English at the very least). This makes it very difficult to improve the article to FA because of the lack of secondary sources that cover his life before and after WWII. To get quickly to the point (before this turns into WP:TLDR), we must choose our battles carefully. Revcasy (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
But it needs to be discussed - we can archive and summarise afterwards. A lot can be done even where little or no information exists. See my Beorma article - all sourced but probably the biggest encyclopaedic article on him. That could easily be done for, say, Creoda of Mercia. I think we should at least try to get articles about the most important figures as far up the GA rankings as we can, and sometimes emphasising their importance and prioritising them as articles would help this.However, thosediscussions should be on an article by article basis.Metabaronic (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The importance criteria are (mainly) an internal project matter, unlike class criteria. So, if the quality/quantity of sources is the bee's knees - then fine! Be careful however about moving this sort of thing beyond the capability of the interested amateur to do ratings - more hands less effort. I'd strongly recommend against "top", without some unarguable justification (this rating needs to be an exclusive group). Criteria need to be accessible and clear. Don't get hung up about it, it's only a measure, the important stuff is in the articles. Try rating a score of articles across the range, as a test run and see how it looks, but do it soon before it becomes an issue. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Put in templates to be filled out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Assessment, from discussion. Sadads (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What should be included?[edit]

I know very little about the eras covered by this project so can I ask should: Dumnonia, List of Kings of Dumnonia, Dobunni, Dumnonii, Gildas & early holders of Abbot of Glastonbury (when abbots were closely linked to royalty) etc & languages such as Proto-Southwestern Brythonic be included?— Rod talk 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My own take is that British Kingdoms would only be covered from the time they are either conquered or agree to pay tribute to an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom. In some cases this never happened, so those Kingdoms would not be covered by the project. In other cases the period of tribute is uncertain - for example there is an argument that prior to 616 King Cearl of Mercia was overlord of British kingdoms in Wales.
The Sub-Roman period coincided with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, but the project should really only be concerned with Sub-Roman England - that part of Britain which came under the rulership of Anglo-Saxons prior to the Norman conquest.
In the case of Dumnonia parts of the Kingdom were conquered, but not as far as Cornwall (the Cornovii retained their independence), and exactly how much of the Western Britons were under the overlordship of Anglo-Saxons after the Battle of Deorham in 577 is unclear. Where it is a grey area like this, there probably must be an overlap, and we should work with WP:ARTHUR and WP:WALES to maintain a neutral point-of-view.Metabaronic (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anglo Saxon Kingdoms[edit]

I've set this up at the top of the Category Tree for the project. It captures Anglo Saxon England, the Heptarchy, and the individual Heptarchy Kingdoms. In theory everything else should fit into those categories or their individual subcategories.Metabaronic (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles![edit]

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language, Danish included. ;-/ (and is there an Anglo-Saxon version of Wikipedia? That would count too....)
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, yes, ang:wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject name[edit]

Just a minor quibble: I think "Kingdoms" in the project's name should be lower case because it is a common noun. To go even further, a broader name might be more suitable, e.g. "Anglo-Saxons" or "Anglo-Saxon history and culture". Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, then our abbreviation is WPASK which looks better than WPASHC. Sadads (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, "Anglo-Saxon kingdoms" would be more appropriate, per WP:LOWERCASE. Hayden120 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Or "Anglo-Saxon England" (WPASE), perhaps? Hayden120 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That was my thought originally, but several users objected. I think its because "England" did not actually exist until after the Normans came. Sadads (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The name "England" actually comes from Old English "Engla land" (land of the Angles), and was used before the Norman invasion. If other editors object, perhaps History of Anglo-Saxon England should be moved, and other publications, such as Cambridge's academic journal, are wrong. Hayden120 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that England came into being under Edgar in the 10th century. Certainly he called himself King of the English. Which implies that England did not exist as a political entity before Edgar. However my reading of the title "History of Anglo-Saxon England", is that it means England the geographical entity of today, during the Anglo-Saxon period, I guess that is somewhat ambiguous. The problem is that in a title it is difficult to convey precisely what the article is about. I think that the "introduction" has the job of doing that. Or to put another way it should tell 'em, what you are going to tell 'em! I don't see any elegant way round that. Of course we could take a leaf out of Peter Heylyns book he entitled :
A Help to English History; containing a Succession of all the Kings of England, the English, Saxons, and the Britons the Kings and Princes of Wales; the Kings and Lords of Man and the Isle of Wight. As also of All the Dukes, Marquises,Earls, and Bishops thereof. With the Descriptions of the Places from whence they had their Titles. Together with the Names and Ranks of the Viscounts, Barons, and Baroners of England.
It sort of explains what the book is about!! Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Northcote Toller[edit]

I sent an e-mail to a scholar at my university who has written several articles on him, maybe we can get some help from her. Sadads (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Got a research list, will start writing. She said she would review it for us. Sadads (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then and now[edit]

Should we refer to places by their names at the time? I have noticed that several articles refer to (for example) places of birth being in counties or nations that were not formed until after their deaths. For instance, Oxfordshire was apparently founded in the 10th century. Alfred the Great was somehow born here around 849.

Does this wikiproject use the places at the time or the places that exist now?-- OsirisV (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I think that is a judgment call of the editor depending on how much scholarship is available for the pre-Contemporary placename, if it is substantial create the page for the older place and link to it in the history section of the new place name. I would suggest exploring Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which deals with these issues, Sadads (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I have also noticed some biographies give a birth place as "Wessex, England". Was Wessex an official subdivision of England or were they just born in Wessex and someone simply put down where in the world it is? An example would be Æþelræd of Wessex whose infobox states his birthplace as "Wessex, England". However, the Wessex article says that England is formed in 927.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Ancient Wessex was one of the old kingdoms and was never a subdivision as such. Athelstan (of Wessex) is credited with being the first king of all England in 937 after the battle of Brunanburh and he did it largely by conquest. It was the kings of Wessex who are credited with creating England and they did it by conquering or forming treaties with the former constituent kingdoms of England. Initially the Kings of Wessex were overlords of the other kingdoms. It wasn't really till 973 that Edgar was crowned King of all England. So take your pick when England was actually born!However the shape of England in 973 is somewhat different to what it is now. Wessex technically does not exist anymore. However, the term is used by quite a few organistaions eg: Wessex Health Authority, which would be a health authority based in the modern counties of Hampshire and Dorset that approximately coincide with the old borders of ancient Wessex. Talking about ancient times, I think to say that someone was born in Wessex, England is technically incorrect. It should be either Wessex/ the former Kingdom of Wessex/ Ancient Wessex/ or even Wessex present day Hampshire, England. I guess that the editor has said Wessex, England because a lot of people would not know where Wessex is, and added England for clarity, though technically not correct? Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Just like Italy and Germany, England existed as a geographical concept and a country long before it was a single political unit. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a confusing situation in which both are correct, with one also being incorrect. Could it be possible for a consensus over this issue? And Johnbod, were you referring to Germany in its 19th-20th century state as a collection of kingdoms (eg. Saxony) and electorates?-- OsirisV (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Its 11-20th century status, yes. Not sure I understand your comment, but never mind. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of the unusual division of the empire (which seems more like an association of independent states to me).-- OsirisV (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It was, though not formally so until 1648. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Germany was decentralized, England during the early part of this period was more so. Sadads (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, at least from 1648, Germany was a collection of totally independent entities, as was early AS England; there was no centre. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Once England became an entity, its capital was Winchester, the capital of Wessex, and the Kings of Wessex became the early Kings of England. The capital was moved to London after the Norman Conquest. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo GA review[edit]

Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. This project is tagged on the talkpage as one that has an interest in the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork *YES! 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum's FAR[edit]

I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

John Speed's portraits of Anglo-Saxon kings[edit]

Hello ! I've got a question about this picture. The caption says it is a depiction of Sigeberht of East Anglia, but John Speed's map actually mentions East Saxon beside it, so shouldn't it rather be Sigeberht the Good? Same goes for this one: is it really Æthelwold of East Anglia, or is it actually Eorpwald? I'm a little bit confused, to say the least, so any clarification would be welcome. Ælfgar (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

None of them are "really" anybody! They are just dreamt up a thousand years later by someone using a wildly inaccurate history book. I hope no one is using them in articles. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I know they are not, but that does not mean they were meant to depict any king: Speed had precise individuals in mind when he drew them. And I believe it interesting to see how a 17th-century historian (however bad his work might appear to us now) saw the Anglo-Saxon kings, especially with the attributed arms and the like, as long as the source is clearly indicated (unlike, for example, the present Alfred the Great with its 19th-century schoolbook drawings). Ælfgar (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD pending on Wulfrida, Queen of Wessex?[edit]

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Svein, King of Norway[edit]

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Works added at Wikisource[edit]

I have added a couple of works recently at English Wikisource that may be useful references for Anglo-Saxon English saints.

billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain? or Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain?[edit]

You decide![n 1]

RM discussion at talk:Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain#requested move you may be interested in. Two years ago, an editor unilaterally moved the page to settlement without process and against wp:commonname; I've restored it and attempted to patch up some of its self-contradiction and meandering. She's returned and set up a vote. Policies, evidence, discussion after the jump. — LlywelynII 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for information, the page move from "invasion" to "settlement" was agreed by consensus, and was uncontested, in 2009. It doesn't do LlywelynII any credit to misrepresent that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ Really, there's policy and invasion shows up 6710 times to settlement's 77 on Google Books. But a real consensus can totally ignore policy for years til an admin cares one way or the other.

Anglo-Saxon whatever of Britain[edit]

Also, for what it's worth, the page is currently a mass of historiology without much content about the relevant information. If someone has time and can add details about (a) Gildas's account, (b) Bede's account (to the extent it differs), and (c) the modern historians' views – not about the non-genocide of the Celts, but about the actual events which occurred during the A-S whatever – the page would benefit measurably. It's currently ranked "Start" but "High Importance". — LlywelynII 00:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Raith 0 Germany 1?[edit]

Some fellow eyes to watch the Battle of Raith article would be appreciated as it is one of several articles which has drawn the attention of an enthusiastic new editor whose mission is apparently to widen the scope of the Germanic Wars and the Military History of Germany to include any conflicts involving peoples who are related to ones who were at any point romanised (in this case Britons in what is now Scotland) and any germanic peoples (Angles). I'm a bit worried about their editing more widely as well, but this article is the one most pertinent to this project. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed merger[edit]

I've proposed a merger of Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia to Anglian collection at Talk:Anglian collection and would appreciate interested editors commenting there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon Essays[edit]

BBC Radio 3 are doing a series of essays on Anglo-Saxon individuals, if anyone is interested? Available here Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They're excellent, it's inspiring to hear the experts speaking themselves. Hel-hama (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


See Talk:Wihtred_of_Kent#name_of_son; looks like an error that's been around since 2006. Does anyone have a source that makes it "Ælfric"?

Assuming nobody does, it'll have to be changed in the AS kings templates and in the other language wikis too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

New user changing "King of the English" to "King of England"[edit]

I've asked him to stop, to no avail. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The case is not clear cut. Some sources such as the Handbook of British Chronology describe kings after 927 as King of England, but others such as The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England and A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain as King of the English. Both are obviously acceptable, but 'the English' seems to have a slight edge and if I remember correctly there was a consensus at some point for this usage.
To be fair to the new user, there was some confusion as several kings were described as of the English in the infobox and of England in the text. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I reverted him at Athelstan, given as example at another article of a king with that title. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was doing this to make it more consistant and show someone unfamiliar with Anglo-Saxon history that they are one and the same thing, king of the English and king of England. This is something so arbitrary why does it matter such a minor difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It matters because we follow the sources ... which favor "King of the English" for this period. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at [2] - academic sources calling these kings "King of the English" as well as the article I pointed you to, Style of the British sovereign. It seems to be that only with the Danish conquest did the geographical word 'England' come into use, with Cnut probably the first king to call himself King of England. Lawson, M. K. (2004), Cnut – England's Viking King (2nd ed.) Lawson, Cnut, p. 97. "The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Canute was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England."" After all, he wasn't just king of the English, he was king of the entire population. There's a difference. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Æ or Ae?[edit]

I have proposed a move from Aetheling to Ætheling at Talk:Aetheling#Requested move 20 February 2015 and an editor has opposed on the ground that Wikipedia should follow modern dictionaries, not specialist works. As almost all articles use Æ, I think this raises a general point which requires discussion. (I could not find any previous discussion but apologies if I have missed it.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer Æ. Ae looks ugly and wrong to me. But that may be because I read a lot of Anglo-Saxon history. However, when Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians was nominated for WP:TFA, editors jokingly supported it on the ground that it remedied the lack of TFAs with Æ in them and no reader objected. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This has come up at least once before; I think scholarly sources are the way to go. I'll comment at the RM. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi, would anyone handy with Old English be able to help with Cliviger#Toponomy? "the origin was Saxon, from "clivvig" and "shire", meaning "rocky district"" doesn't feel right to me. Although I'm sure all the members of this project are fluent, incase I'm wrong, can anybody suggest where I might go next? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You could try here. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I spent a little while there trying to figure it out but nothing I could find looks even remotely like the source. I think I'm just going to remove the clivvig shire part of the sentence. Cheers.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)