Talk:Angles (tribe)

True meaning of the root word "ang" from long ago

The root "ang" long ago meant "narrow/long" ("long" is synonymous with "narrow" as something which is long is characteristically also narrow, and vice-versa).

Tacitus mentioned a tribe called the "Anglii" (the "l" being added due to an attempt to Latinize "ang" as the meaning was clearly not synonymous with Latin "angulus", and the "ii" to turn it into a tribal name), no doubt a reference to them being "tall" (a tall person is "long in height", "long-legged", etc). However, the placement of the "tall" people on the Jutland Peninsula is not correct, and having both "Anglii" and "Saxones" gave the false impression of the Anglii and Saxones being different tribes. Such mistakes in information or communication often happen when dealing with peoples, places, and languages of fringe areas and beyond.

In Dutch and German, "eng" (which long ago was cognate with "ang") later came to mean "meadow" because meadows were typically narrow/long stretches of grassland along rivers. Thus, nowadays, England does mean "meadowland" in Dutch and German. Long ago, the name "English" would have meant "tall-ish" (characteristic of being tall) because "ang" used to also mean "tall", and "England", which came into use at a much later date due to a long period of, historically obvious, uncertainty about its usage, would have meant "tall-land", if it was formed by combination of "ang/eng" + "land". However, this is not the source of "England", which is actually derived from the word "igland" (meaning "island"). You see, "g" during the time of "igland" was pronounced as a soft, blended together "ng" sound, and later came to be pronounced as "ng" in Modern English, at which time the word "igland" was respelled "england". Thus, England actually means "island". Granted, England does not comprise the entirety of the Island of Britain, but this does not change the fact that "england" means "island". Thibeinn (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

We just report what published sources say. Can you cite any published sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, To keep with the "only post citable information" policy, I will no longer post information which cannot, as yet, be cited. Thibeinn (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

Not sure what exactly is controversial about this. The Angles settled southern and eastern Scotland heavily, many people living there today descend from them. How are the modern Scottish people not a related ethnic group? A huge part of their genetic, and an even larger part of their cultural heritage, comes from the Angles and the regions of Scotland they settled historically. I suggest you not revert it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.140.143 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the Scottish people in the south of Scotland are related to the Angles, but that claim needs a reliable source. Macedonian (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I added a reference to the Lowland Scots, I guess that should be enough. Macedonian (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to settle for that, although English genes are now found all throughout the region (the population of the Highlands itself is close to 50% retirees from England today), and the language shifted a long time ago too. So again in the Highlands, just as in the Lowlands you have demographic shift altering the genetics and shifting the language of the region. The only difference is it happened a lot more recently in the Highlands, which I think is a rather arbitrary point of difference. Things haven't just remained frozen in time since the Middle Ages. A region of land doesn't just remain intrinsically 'Celtic' for all time even as the inhabitants change along with the language and culture of the region. People can call themselves whatever they want but if all Celtic ends up being reduced to is 'people calling themselves Celtic and considering themselves such' then it's just a vapid term devoid of all meaning and substance and carries as much weight as South Slavs in the Balkans calling themselves 'Macedonians'. But I'll settle here as this is utterly exhausting. Thank you for the partial concession, at the very least.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.26 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Translating into Chinese Wikipedia

The version 11:17, 29 October 2021 Dawnseeker2000 of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing stub.--Wing (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Some Latinate quibbling around whether the English are Angels.

The quote is, "Pope Gregory I, in an epistle, simplified the Latinised name Anglii to Angli," I don't actually believe this was simplification, but a change in meaning from "like the Angli" to just, "the Angli." It was more a political statement of recognition than a beurocratic orthography game.

Not sure the citations for this, but that's just what I read here. Phenylphenol (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: It is clear from the discussion that it is nessecary to move away from the status quo. Because out of the 3 proposed alternatives, the options to either have no primary topic or to have a Primary Redirect at the basename garnered highest support wihout a clear preference for either of them, I will resrt to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. The pages are Moved as proposed and future discussions can be opened for the primary redirect.(non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• Angles → Angles (tribe)
• Angles (disambiguation) → Angles

– Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 23#Angles, I reverted the previous bold move of Angles to Angles (tribe), which also retargeted the primary topic to Angle. But this definitely warrants further discussion. It seems we have three options here: (1) Retain the status quo, with the tribe as primary topic; (2) Have no primary topic, with the disambiguation page at the base name, (3) Move Angles to Angles (tribe) and then make Angles be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Angle. My personal preference is (2), I don't think there's a primary topic either way, so I've styled the RM that way. But editors are also free to suggest that Angle is the primary topic in this RM. Note too that when Googling for Angles, the majority seem to be about the geometric concept.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to participants at the RFD: @Lights and freedom, CycloneYoris, BD2412, Fieari, A7V2, Fyrael, AngusWOOF, and PK2:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. It was initially amazing to me that Angles does not point to Angle, but the degree of support for the tribe being at this title has led me to conclude that there is no primary topic for this term at all. BD2412 T 14:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support the tribe has 19,473 views (plus 298 from the Angles (tribe) redirect) but the geometry meaning has 15,336 and the others uses have 4,553[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  What's interesting, is that the tribe got considerably fewer views on the one full day when it was housed at Angles (tribe), compared with its whole previous run as the primary topic. That suggests that a lot of readers are landing here by mistake.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would be careful though in quoting pageviews from moved made and reverted within days as its quite possible users ended up at this title and being redirected to the singular from Google and incoming links and didn't end up clicking on the hatnote. But yes there probably is enough evidence at least that "Angles" doesn't refer to the tribe significantly more so isn't primary. By usage the tribe has more views (though just under a quarter views for the other uses isn't insignificant) than the geometry meaning and readers are probably more likely to use the singular when searching (or editors linking) but the geometry meaning probably has more long-term significance and more worldwide interest and users will generally expect plural forms to redirect to their singulars as that's what we normally do so a DAB is probably the best idea. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support option (1). I think the plural form is a natural disambiguator and the clarifier "(tribe)" isn't really needed if "Angle" and "Angles" have distinct page names. I don't have a strong preference though. Ingwina (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ingwina: Is an individual member of the tribe called an Angle? BD2412 T 01:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Of course but we are talking about the tribe and so the plural makes sense, like in other pages on Germanic tribes like Geats, Danes (tribe) and Goths. Ingwina (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, BD2412 and Crouch, Swale. There are 11 entries [one of which is a three-entry dab page] listed upon the Angles (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the article delineating the Germanic peoples maintains such an overwhelming historical standing as to dwarf the combined notability of the remaining 10 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support option 3 - most people who have done compulsory maths in school (e.g. in the UK, up to year 11) will recognise angles as the plural for angle whereas angles from the history point of view will be recognised by only those who have learnt that in the subject (which I have not). Angles may serve as a redirect to Angle or Angle (disambiguation) and I also think both the Angle and Angles disambiguation pages could be merged together at Angle (disambiguation). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a great argument, because it reminds me of the part of the relevant guideline at WP:NWFCTM ("not what first comes to mind"). It works even better here because the example of education - both school learning and an encyclopedia are supposed to facilitate learning, and short-circuiting without a stronger rationale seems like it would be contrary to that purpose. --Joy (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 - I don't think option 1 is a good idea, and expressly !vote against it, as I think this will cause confusion to many readers and violate the redirect principle of "least astonishment". I agree with the nominator that I don't think there really is a primary topic, and would strongly prefer option 2 for that reason... I see the argument that a lot of school kids have only heard of angles in the context of geometry, so I don't strenuously oppose option 3 like I do for 1, but I also agree with Ingwina's statement that the plural makes for a natural disambiguator in the land of "technically correct". The trouble is that while the plural form SHOULD be only used by those looking for the people, in practice I know that's not going to be the case... so I'd want to gently correct them with a disambiguation page as opposed to just assuming that everyone searching "Angles" is a kid who only knows the word from geometry. If I actually am looking for information on the tribe, it would also violate "least astonishment" to somehow end up at a page on math, when I clearly typed the name of the tribe! But a disambiguation page serves both types of people looking for information. Incidentally, I think merging the Angle and Angles disambiguation pages would be a good idea as well. Fieari (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Option 3. Definitely not primary topic. "Angles" should redirect to the mathematical angle. Quite shocked it is not. Walrasiad (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Angles does not show the hatnote in the top 20 outgoing links on this article, and judging by #20, it's less than 159 clicks on it out of a total incoming traffic of 28.2k, which is negligible (0.5% or less). This typically indicates that the average reader isn't really astonished by what they see and don't click the hatnote - alternatively, they're so perplexed by what they see that they just give up, but that seems very unlikely. So I think option #3 should not be done - just disambiguate it (#2), put these two meanings at the top, and then we can follow up in a couple of months time after all the search engine patterns settle, and see if reader behavior warrants any further change. --Joy (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The proposed move makes sense in my eyes. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support option 3 per nom, Iggy and Walrasiad. Personally, I also think think "Angles" should redirect to the mathematical angle too, this page moved to "Angles (tribe)", because even though the latter page has more views than the former, the majority of online searches seem to be about the geometric concept, and I also think both the Angle and Angles disambiguation pages should be merged together at Angle (disambiguation) because the former disambiguation page is a bit bigger than the latter one. PK2 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support option 3 per nom, the mathematical term is far and away the primary topic here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it the primary topic? It's not particularly more viewed, and the tribe clearly has great long-term significance too.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to see just how much views decrease after this page is moved before assuming otherwise. If views are still strong, I have no qualms pointing the redirect to Angle (disambiguation) instead. It wouldn't require much extra effort. I still support Option 3 as I believe both disambiguation pages can be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

followup to move discussion

Cf. Talk:Angles#followup to move discussion --Joy (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)