Template talk:Kings of Mercia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Old English letters

I suggest that OE letters be changed to modern equivalents in this template. I think "Æ" and "æ" can be preserved, since they are still in use in modern English orthography, but "þ" has not been in use for centuries. I also suggest that the accents on the names be removed -- this may be correct OE usage, but the common use in secondary sources now does not include them.

The relevant guideline, Naming conventions, makes it clear there's debate on similar issues, so I thought I'd post here before making any changes. If I hear no objections I'll make the edits in a few days. Mike Christie (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see TharkunColl has reverted the changes I made. Could you post here and comment? I still think it would be better to use the modern spelling. Mike Christie (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My aim has been consistency, but as it happens I have been thinking along the same lines. I'll go through it and remove the accents, and change the thorns to th. May take a bit of time though. TharkunColl 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No hurry. I've been doing it as I edit each article. Sometimes consistency is difficult; I haven't checked yet, but I rather suspect "Egbert" is the common form for the king of Wessex, but "Ecgberht" seems to be used for the king of Kent. I've been using a count of spellings in the scholarly sources I have access to, with a bit of a bias towards the most recent ones if it seems there are two good choices. Mike Christie (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay done it. TharkunColl 11:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ealdorman vs. deputy

I changed "earldormen" to "ealdormen" just to get the spelling right, but I don't think it's the right change in the first place -- I would be surprised if the Lady of the Mercians was ever called an ealdorman. I don't know if deputy is correct either, but if we're going to include the rules from the second Ceolwulf onwards (which we don't have to do) then it's probably better than ealdorman. I don't think these Ceolwulf or Aethelred were ever called "King", were they? How about just leaving them off the template? Mike Christie (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceolwulf II was king: PASE. Æthelred is not king in any source: PASE. Æthelflæd is sometimes queen: PASE. I'd go with "ruler" or "lord" and "lady". But shouldn't Æthelstan be on the list? He was king in Mercia (only) after Edward's death. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edgar and Canute too. Although they were kings of other places as well, just not Wessex - at least, not at first. TharkunColl (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-850 I have little opinion and less knowledge so I'll let y'all sort it out. One thing I'd say is that a good way to figure out who should be in the template is to invert it and figure out which templates would be on the articles involved. For example, if a later ruler such as Edgar or Canute would have a king of England template of some kind, that's probably better than using a Mercia template. I don't think there's a lot of value in having multiple templates at the bottom of the article -- one is a definite help to a reader; two isn't great but can be done if it's really necessary; I don't think we should ever have more than two. (Actually I don't like having more than one but I think there are cases where it's the best choice.) Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my misspelling. One of the recent books (I think by Walker) was able to show that Mercia retained an identity distinct from Wessex for a generation or so after Aethelfaed's death. Her daughter Aelfwynn was in practice prevented from ruling. I would suggest that successors should appear up to the point where there was a common ruler for Mercia and Wessex. Cnut was king of England, not merely of some of its constituents and should thus not appear. I am not sure whether the template could be amended to make "ruling ealdormen" a separate section. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)