Talk:Wuffingas

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move to Wuffingas. Ucucha 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

House of Wuffing → Wuffingas – Relisted. There is a consensus that the article should be moved, but further input is required to determine the title it should be moved to. Jenks24 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Let's pick something which is actually used, for instance by Barbara Yorke, Andrew Wareham, D. P. Kirby, etc. Cavila (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In what context do they use the word 'Wuffingas'? Shatter Resistance (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See Google Books: search 'Wuffingas' and you get phrases like "the eight faces on the sceptre are the ancestors of the Wuffingas", "the location of the Wuffingas' heartland" and "no kings of the 'East Angles' are known earlier than the Wuffingas". Wuffingas, Wuffing dynasty, Wuffing or Wuffings are all used by various historians whose work is cited in Wikipedia articles about the kings of this dynasty (Yorke, Kirby, Carver, etc.), whereas no texts I have reads have ever referred to the 'House of Wuffing'. I'd prefer Wuffingas. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I find the present title regrettable, since it implies the wrong name for Wuffa; I should however prefer Wuffings. We are writing in Modern English; there is an Anglo-Saxon WP, which could use a version of this artlcle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A little confused as how this inplies the "wrong name for Wuffa", what does that mean? Wuffings doesn't make any sense to use, how is it 'modern english'? Surely any word that you use in current context is modern english? Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

House of Wuffing implies that there was a person (House of Cedric - a title which begs several questions), or possibly a place (House of Hanover), called Wuffing. There wasn't; there was Wuffa and his descendants the Wuffings. Strongly oppose Wuffingas as I would oppose Atreidai, which is and ought to be a redirect; both are mere paedantry, not what the family is called in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"House of Wuffing" gets no hits at all and doesn't make much sense. House of Wuffa is the form consistent with the way royal houses are usually named on Wiki. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposal. Srnec (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So that name House of Windsor implies that the current ruling House of Britain have anything to do with Windsor or had some in their family called Windsor? Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it does; it was coined from Windsor Castle, which is a royal residence. Whether the implication of that piece of war propaganda is accurate is another question entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The outstanding question seems to be whether to use "Wuffings" or "Wuffingas" - naive searching on both Google Books and Google Scholar indicates that "the Wuffingas" is three times as common as "the Wuffings" - is there any reason not to follow this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's precisely why I suggested Wuffingas, which is what they're called in English. It's that simple really. I can't say I'm surprised given how Wikipedia operates, but it would be pedantic to insist on some preconceived notion of consistency or Englishness at the expense of what reliable sources in the real world are actually doing these days. Cavila (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support for reasons already specified. "House of Wuffing" really is pushing credibility (though I appreciate there is a valid analogy with the Gibbonian House of Cerdic): Wuffingas is the best of the options, though if it is more common I could go with Wuffings too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose whilst Wuffingas may well be a word commonly used so far no evidence has been provided that this is the correct form of the word to describe the content of this article. Another proposal was House of Wuffa which seems just as plausiable as the correct form of the word to use. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I would marginally prefer "Wuffingas", since that seems to be the predominant form in the secondary literature, but "Wuffings" would be OK too. Yorke translates Bede's "Uuffingas" as "Wuffingas"; Colgrave makes it "Wuffings". Neither seems unscholarly to me. I would not support "House of Wuffa" without evidence that that's a term in use in reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'll add my support for Wuffingas (with Wuffings as second choice). Reflecting what seems to be current scholarly usage.--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Merger proposal

A page, Uffingas, has recently been created to cover the exact same subject as this article, which uses the alternative name. This forking should be eliminated by merging any useful information on that page into this one. Care should be taken, however, since the Uffingas page is based largely on very dated or non-scholarly sources, including a citation to a Google Books entry for a Books-on-Demand version of this Wikipedia article. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has superseded this with a Redirect. Agricolae (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For once Agricolae, I am in agreement with your first suggestion. Sorry about the google books source I had thought I had removed that, genuinely not happy with myself for that, but am glad you found some of the info interesting and useful and would appreciate your suggestion what can be merged. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Uffingas sources, I would agree with Agricolae that they are all either too out of date or unscholarly to use, as a result much of the Uffingas article cannot be merged with Wuffingas. Hel-hama (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many are out of date, however some are notable and present a neutral point of view. The three original historical sources (Henry of Huntingdon, Bede and Flores Historiarum) use the name "Uffa" from the original word on the Textus Roffensis (arguably Wuffa from the shadow of a Wynn), which I argue deserves reasonable coverage and I'm going to try with a the Beowulf and the Uffington White Horse reference, but nothing extensive and nothing to compromise the terminology of the article as per WP:COMMONNAME. Stats on this are interesting and show us correct on Uffingas only getting 359 hits to Wuffingas with 877. I took a more comprehensive look at the subject, did a few searches, and found that the singular form Uffinga gets 1220 hits compared to only 432 for Wuffinga. The Google Books search on King Uffa comes up 1490 in favour against 1410 for King Wuffa. Uffa gets 169,000 compared to Wuffa only 3,090. The observance goes to the large number of high quality modern sources, but balance should be brought to the source. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that although talk page consensus was against merging in this information - it was merged anyway. And it's incorrect to state that Henry of Huntingdon, Bede and the Flores use the name "Uffa", since what we're really talking about is different forms of the same name. Spelling changes over time, but the name is still the same, no matter how it is spelled or spoken. And what the heck does "but balance should be brought to the source" mean? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That first statement sounds distinctly Anti-History to be deleting content wholesale without examination or consideration. Thank you for yours however. Appropriate material has been merged now and the article definitely improved. Balancing the sources in my opinion is giving accurate reflection for the actual words, written on the actual historical sources, within limits - as alternatives if common name denies primacy. Using common names is fine but maintaining an NPOV is also (possibly excessively) important for me, especially in with something as subjective as history and naming conventions within it. I have suggested these are of valuable importance for historical research along with various evidence to provide a balanced view of the sources. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You again fail to understand what it is that Wikipedia does. What you just described is what a historian does - they weigh up the primary sources and reflect those sources in their works. THey are trained to interpret manuscripts and in how to determine bias. We are not historians when editing Wikipedia. We are encyclopediaists - we distill down the secondary sources, using modern day historical writings to determine what the current state of scholarship is. We shouldn't be referring to primary sources that often - we should use the names the historian's use in their secondary works. We aren't doing "historical research" .. that's what historians do. THEY write balanced views of the primary sources into secondary sources which we then use to write articles. If you can't grasp this important difference between being a historian and being an encyclopedia writer, you probably need to read up some more on what wikipedia is. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tribe?

This phrase "Similar tribes were have been mentioned as the ancestors of Beowulf:" has two issues - first ... "were have been"? Secondly, the Wuffingas aren't a "tribe" they are a dynasty. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. Lets just call them the Wuffinga dynasty. I'm happy to lose the tribe reference. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

But why did you use tribe originally then? Does the source use tribe? This is the 1807 source - we really need to see modern secondary sources for this sort of claim ... not something from before the end of the Napoleonic Wars! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin Chase

The source given by Chase clearly refers to a Scandinavian dynasty and not the East Anglian Wuffingas. I have edited the article accordingly. Hel-hama (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)