Talk:Anglian collection

Proposed merge from Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia

I propose that Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia be merged into Anglian collection. That article is about a single manuscript in the Anglian collection, Vespasian; there isn't enough information at that page to make it worth a separate page yet. Any content about the genealogies should go here or at the relevant Anglo-Saxon history article; an article about a manuscript should be primarily about the manuscript itself. Note that another of the four mss, the Textus Roffensis, does have its own article; that's also a merge candidate but I think there's a better case to be made for a separate article there because of the laws of Æthelberht. I'll post a note at Talk:Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia and at the Anglo-Saxon WikiProject. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am interested to know what differences Vespasian B Vi has with the other manuscripts and would like to see more information on this subject, so oppose the merge request. Sorry, I have continued to improve the article with illustration, content, context and comparison sections to clarify. Also created Genealogia Lindisfarorum if you are interested to demonstrate how I think historical documents should be treated if they have enough notability and meet article requirements. Would be nice to do genealogy charts for each manuscript really, they're pretty important history. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, in a critical, critical point. It appears that Agricolae has just admitted in an article edit over on the List of monarchs of Mercia, that he has compiled them from myths and legends, not from actual genealogies. This cements my point that we need to keep this article to differentiate between myth-based and genealogy-based king lists on Wikipedia. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie and you know it. I 'admitted' nothing of the sort and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I did. Agricolae (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Read your own edit - (cur | prev) 00:02, 19 November 2012‎ Agricolae (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,480 bytes) (-637)‎ . . (→‎Kings of the Mercians: the legend does not call these kings of Mercia, nor kings at all in most cases) (undo)

Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You decided on your own that these were kings of Mercia when there is no basis for this conclusion in the original source, which as a pedigree does not give anyone a title, nor in discussions of the material reliable scholarly sources. That is no admission of anything on my part. Agricolae (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, although some of the current material would perhaps better be merged into Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, which itself needs some work. As to the new Genealogia Lindisfarorum, I have taken a much needed ax to it. Wikipedia does not exist as a medium to propagate obscure historical genealogical ephemera. A manuscript itself may be notable (although this one doesn't appear to be) but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to reproduce the contents of manuscripts, nor to be a genealogical database by proxy. Agricolae (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer of the merge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Agricolae is making up rules and dogma that don't exist as part of actions that I am beginning to suspect are reminiscent of a McCarthy era and Spanish Inquisition style Witch hunt to suppress the information and names in these Manuscripts being published for wider appreciation, study and discussion. Genealogia Lindisfarorum is perfectly notable, as is this manuscript. Calling it the Anglian collection is misleading. For starters, this 'collection' is in three different places with four distinctly different, highly notable manuscripts all saying notable, important things about human history and ancestry. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  Anglian collection is the name given to these mss by Dumville in the most substantial secondary source discussing them that I know of. The physical separation is no more relevant to the question of whether there should be a single article than the separation of the ASC mss is relevant to the existence of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agricolae, sorry if I got confused about what legends you were talking about. You perhaps know more than I thought you did. Your can try to merge to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, but that is going to get very big very quick if you do. Searching from your suggestion, I found Ancestry of the kings of Wessex, which is a beautiful article, kinda like what I wanted to turn this page into. It's full of "obscure historical genealogical ephemera", but some of us love that stuff, that IS what Wikipedia is all about. So I'd like a rename to the Ancestry of the Kings of Mercia and your permission to work further on it with all this new information gleaned from people like Mike above, who's advice is also excellent. This could also solve the deletion discussion on the Genealogy Lindsey because I would be happy to merge that in with the suggested new article using "Ancestry" terminology. Let me know what you think? Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's not a question of permission; you don't need my permission (or anyone else's), but if you create an article that later gets deleted or merged it's a waste of everyone's time, including yours, so it's better to discuss it beforehand. If you want to add useful material, go ahead and do so, but do it to an article that already covers the ground you want to discuss. I think that article is probably Anglian collection, but I'm open to other suggestions. (Why don't you want to add your material to that article, by the way?)

  As for the genealogical details, I agree that sort of material can be interesting, but what counts here is not whether it's interesting but whether it's encyclopedic. That means you can't add something unless you have secondary sources -- not primary sources -- that discuss that material. Dumville's discussion in ASE 5 is the sort of source I'm talking about, but it's only one source; I think Anglian collection is a valid article because Dumville gets cited a fair amount for that article; it seems to be regarded as an important secondary source in the field. You're going to need that sort of source if you want to discuss the content of these mss. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- The two seem to be dealing with much the same subject. Some of the content of Ancestry of the kings of Britain might also usefully be merged in. I would suggest that th resultant article be entitled Anglian collection of Royal genealogies. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Merge whatever may be useful and well-sourced to this article or to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, keeping due weight. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It's a good idea. Hel-hama (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge implemented

I have implemented the merge per the discussion above. (If someone can point me to whatever template should be used to wrap the discussion above and mark it as closed, I'd appreciate it.) I didn't use the edit summary recommended at WP:MERGE ('Merged content to [[<destination page>#<destination section, if applicable>]]. See [[Talk:<destination page>#<merger section>]]") because I didn't see any content I thought needed to be merged. If anyone reviews the old version of that article and decides to reuse material from it, please attribute it in the edit summary. The comment about Nennius might be usable but I'd like to see a more recent source than 1944 if possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglian collection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412173927/http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf to http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)