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.
 

400,000 photographs of archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales[edit]

In recent weeks, 400,000 images of finds, logged and photographed by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, have been uploaded to Commons.

They are now ready for further categorisation on Commons, and use in Wikipedia articles.

Please see this note on Commons and the project page there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to names of articles on Anglo-Saxon kings[edit]

I have suggested a move from Æthelbald of WessexÆthelbald, King of Wessex at Talk:Æthelbald of Wessex#Requested move 21 February 2017. If this is accepted I would suggest similar changes for other AS kings with similar article titles. Please comment if you have any views on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles on supposed 'kings of the West Anglo-Saxons'[edit]

I've noticed a tidal wave of two-sentence stubs recently created by User:Figfires

I wonder if these articles do more harm than good. They seem to be ancestral names an editor has taken from an out-of-date translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and turned into succeeding 'Kings of the West Anglo-Saxons'. I've noticed that User:Urselius has taken issue with one at Talk:Elesa of the Anglo-Saxons, as has User:Shirt58 and User:Robert McClenon at User_talk:Figfires#Woden_and_Balday. What do you guys think? I wonder if they should be redirected to House of Wessex or List of monarchs of Wessex or something similar.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Figfires - I think that the dates, although uncertain, appear to predate the best estimates of the dates of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. The problem that I see is that these are "historical legend", that is, legend codified into written history, but not accepted as fact by modern historians, but presented as history. I don't think that they should be redirected to any article that presents itself as history, but should be presented as being probably legendary. For an example of how this is properly done in Wikipedia, on the island next to Great Britain, see List of High Kings of Ireland, which notes that a few of the latest kings, such as Brian Boru, are known to be historical rulers (with or without opposition), and that earlier ones are semi-historical, and still earlier ones (with ancestry going back to Spain and back to Japheth are considered legendary in modern times. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with the articles as they stand. Some of the subjects, such as Finn, are Frisian or Scandinavian semi-historical figures, whilst others, such as Woden and Balday (Baldr) are pagan Germanic gods. As such they have existing articles. New articles about them, purely as legendary ancestral figures from A-S lineages, are confusing and redundant. The assertion within the article titles that these figures are "of the Anglo-Saxons" is just plain incorrect. All scholarship asserts unambiguously that the Anglo-Saxons arose as an ethnic and cultural group in Britain in the period c. 450 to c.600AD, and that the recorded expression of this common ethnic consciousness does not much predate c. 700AD. Labelling a Germanic god or continental Germanic folk-hero or semi-legendary king as "of the Anglo-Saxons" is nonsensical. All the useful content of these new articles can be found already in articles containing the family trees of A-S ruling dynasties, along with commentary on their reliability, or otherwise. My preference would be for deletion of all the articles, as they add nothing of value to Wikipedia, and it would take the efforts of more well-informed editors to make them acceptably accurate, and this effort would be better employed elsewhere. Urselius (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Problem solved. I am having them all deleted. --Figfires (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Urselius (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Day and month of the Battle of Maldon[edit]

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Battle of Maldon#Day and month of the battle, and am notifying the WikiProjects identified on that page. Narky Blert (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Praise for Wikipedia[edit]

The links page at [1] on Kemble, the Anglo-Saxon Chrters website, includes "entries in Wikipedia (much of which is very good, with commendable use of footnotes)". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)