Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Danish invasion of 1075: Sweyn or Knut?

I've been trying to learn about the revolts in the 1060s and 1070s. There's a bit in William_the_Conqueror#Revolt_of_the_Earls which I think might a typo. It says "Meanwhile, the Danish king, Sweyn, had finally arrived in England with a fleet of 200 ships, but he was too late as Norwich had already surrendered". The footnote cites "Douglas William the Conqueror pp. 231–233". My library doesn't have that book, so I can't check it, but I think it must refer to Sweyn's son, Knut. From what I've read, Sweyn died in 1074 (the year before the planned invasion). I'm reading a paper by Benjamin Hudson, where he notes that William of Malmesbury states that Sweyn sent Knut to lead the fleet. Hudson says that William is in error because Sweyn died on 28 April 1074; furthermore, Hudson says that Sweyns's other son, Harald, was actually the reigning king at the time. I checked the Cambridge History of Scandinvaia: Volume I by Knut Helle, and he gives Sweyn's death in 1074 too. Hudson and Helle have Knut leading the fleet of 200.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's Knut - I probably just typo'd or something. Fixing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Drat! That's why I put Sweyn on the chart to begin with. Agricolae (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to get ahold of Douglas' book. In the pedigree charts at the back he's got Swein Estrithson succeeded by his son Harald, followed by his other son Cnut in 1080. But there's a typo in the chart, since Douglas gives 1076 for Swein's death. According to Hudson and Helle above, Swein actually died in 1074. Also, on page 232 where Douglas discusses the revolt and fleet of 1075, he says that Swein had "recently died" when Cnut led the fleet to England. Anyways, I've just changed the article to call Cnut "the Danish king's brother".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical fiction...

Bookbard, I've reverted on the basis that the section isn't supported by secondary sources. What I mean by that is that while The Conqueror's Wife, for example, may feature William, there's no supporting citation to show that other writers consider it relevant to understanding or interpreting his life. What I'd usually be expecting to see is something such as, for example, a biographer noting that "our modern interpretation of William is shaped by The Conqueror's Wife..." or an academic article explaining how the book and William are intertwined, etc. An example I sometimes use is the battle of Agincourt. It appears in lots of books, but the article only examines those examples in which there is substantial secondary discussion of it (e.g. how it plays out in Shakespeare's Henry V, a topic covered by many writers). Give me a shout if you need advice on where to look for this sort of material. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is my first time replying to something, so again, I hope I'm doing this right and thank you for your patience! So if I understand correctly, if I want to mention a historical novel, it needs to be important/significant. I realized after I posted the four books that I left out one by Georgette Heyer. I remember reading somewhere that it was used in military training because of the detail and accuracy of The Battle of Hastings. So, if I were going to add it to the page, I shouldn't just mention the book, but write about the book citing where I found the information about the military training? Are these the rules for other pages on historical people, or do different editors have different ways of doing things? BookBard (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, yes. If a historical novel is being mentioned, it needs to be important/significant to the subject of the article. If it were important in its own right, but unimportant to the article in question, it would be worth adding to its own page though, rather than the article in question. An example might be the Heyer book you mention; it is probably an notable fact about the Heyer book that it was so accurate in its depiction of the Battle of Hastings that it was used for military training. You could imagine adding that fact to an article on Heyer or her book; it probably isn't notable in the context of the Battle of Hastings article, though, unless academic books on the Battle of Hastings also routinely mention Heyer and military training.

In terms of the guidelines, have a look at WP:VERIFY, which gives some guidance on how to find good secondary sources, WP:CITE, which outlines the importance of citations, WP:UNDUE, which explains how articles should reflect the balance of reliable sources. WP:NOR gives guidance on avoiding original research in the context of the wiki, which is also quite helpful. If an historical novel is important and relevant to understanding William I, for example, you'd want to be thinking "how do I verify that statement?", "what secondary source can I cite to support it?", "am I giving due or undue weight to that source?" and "am I happy that this is an existing conclusion in the literature, and not my own work or conclusion?" Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The question you want to ask before adding this sort of information (i.e. mentions of the article subject in fictional works) is .. does it tell us anything new and important about the article subject. What does the fact that some book might be used in some military training somewhere tell us about William? I sincerely question whether this would tell us anything new about William (and what we actually know of the tactics of Hastings is a lot less than most folks assume - many of the "facts" are based on late sources that may not be accurate.) It very well may be an interesting and important piece of information about the book, but it doesn't really shed much light on William himself, does it? In answer to your question about rules, the relevant policy is WP:POPCULTURE, I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! This is all very helpful. I think I'm going to take a step back and think things over a bit more and come up with a new sort of "plan". As I'm going along, I'm realizing Wikipedia is different than I thought it was. This is actually a good thing; it is much more academic and I'm glad people are there to keep things accurate and professional. I'm excited to be a part of this and I'm glad of the extra challenge :) BookBard (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! If I can help along the way, just leave a message on my talk page, as per before. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

this is the "featured article" on 12/25/12 ... and you have a grammatical mistake in the first graf

Among other potential claimants was the powerful English earl Harold Godwinson, who Edward named as the next king on his deathbed in January 1066.

It's WHOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.9.50 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.244.42 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right, and a request has been submitted to correct the error. If it's any consolation, the article itself doesn't have that error, only the blurb on the Main Page(!); somehow the text of the article was adapted without the change of case of pronoun being noticed or completed.

I've changed your header, by the way, since it is 25 December, not 24, which is featuring this article. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason this article was semi-protected while it was on the Main Page? Normally Today's Featured Articles are only move-protected, not write-protected. Angr (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's actually always semi-protected. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Empire: The Richmond Saga 1066 A.D

Here is the Amazon listing for the new source Empire: The Richmond Saga 1066 A.D - note it says the author is "Life long resident of Caldwell Parish Louisiana. Teacher and Coach for 30 years at Caldwell Parish High School. Master's degree in Education @ Northeast La. University-Monroe LA". This isn't a reliable source. It's published by iUniverse which is a self publishing firm. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For that matter - the 1066: The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry isn't really a high quality reliable source either. You need to show that scholars are discussing this obscure incident in such detail - neither Bates nor Douglas give near this prominence to the story about Harold's capture and fighting with William - we shouldn't either in an encyclopedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. Bencherlite^Talk 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, what about the Bayeux Tapestry mentioning them in scene 17, scene 19, scene 20, scene 21? Just curious what you guys think, is the Bayeux Tapestry not a reliable source? Does that mean Battle of Dinan should be deleted or merged or something since the article has no references? daintalk   00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:PRIMARY about the use of the Bayeux Tapestry as a source for something: for example, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." So, no, I wouldn't think it's great to source statements to what you say the Bayeux Tapestry shows. And as for the quality of the Battle of Dinan article, that's a matter for that article, not this one (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments don't cut much ice on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know). Bencherlite^Talk 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh I see, gotcha. I guess I have some research to do later. I hadn't seen WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before but good to know. thanks again,  daintalk   00:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The Bayeaux Tapestry would be a primary source so we don't use it as a source. I've never seen the "Battle of Dinan" mentioned in either Bates of Douglas - it could be real it might not be. The whole episode of Harold's trip to the Continent is extremely obscure and not well attested in the original sources. Walker's biography of Harold mentions it but doesn't conclude why he went there or if it was intentional or an accident. Walker concludes "The Tapestry suggest that William went on to raid Rennes and to capture the castle of Dinant from Conan, but none of this is supported by William of Poitiers and it therefore probably never occurred." - you'd need to consult works on or about Conan to see what they say also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers Ealdgyth, I appreciate the assistance. I know I'm probably annoying you guys by being persistent and asking questions and asking for your opinions as opposed to "oh, they reverted my edit, time to leave" so thanks for helping me out in a constructive manner at least. daintalk   00:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The biggest thing about editing wikipedia well .. and actually adding useful content that is well sourced and good ... is that you need to read a LOT of sources and actually be an expert on things. That means spending time learning things before you edit anything. I read history books for fun - you can't just read a couple of "light" history books and hope to actually be editing at the featured article level. FA requires the absolute best sources possible, and a good background in the subject matter so that you can tell when your source is wrong. A lot of times, people want to think they can edit FAs without having a good knowledge of the subject - it's just not possible except for on a very superficial level. Even Malleus has learned a lot by reading and copyediting articles I work on ... he can now point out errors I miss! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ealdgyth, I feel like a jagbag for causing such a hassle for you :/  daintalk   01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Caption

'Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry showing William giving arms to Harold during Harold's trip to the continent in 1064'

Not clear what this means. It could hardly be almsgiving. Is he offering to supply armaments? Or just making a particular kind of salute, to show friendship? Valetude (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

He's giving weapons - i.e. arms and armour - to Harold. We're not sure what the makers of the tapestry meant by the scene, so it's hard to go into too much detail in the caption here. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Image layout

The style manual states that images should be set to the right as a default ("In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement," [1]; "The default placement for a thumbnail is on the right," [2]). They may be staggered to alleviate bunching and stacking, but where that is not a problem, they should be to the right. Also, headers should be flush to the left, which is why I flipped the images distorting the "Death and aftermath" header. Other than that, I only moved two pics to the right. Why you are so invested in this layout, I don't know, and I will not change it but ... really? Sheesh. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The very next section states "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." It just looks better if it's more evenly staggered. If they are evenly staggered the placement works better on lots of different monitor sizes. (For instance ... I use two monitors - a normal 20" one and a larger one. The evenly staggered looks more consistent across different sizes than most of them flush right.). The norm for FA articles is usually to either put them all flush right or to stagger pretty evenly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And the next paragraph states, "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection." Placing images in that position is sometimes necessary to avoid bunching, but the two that I moved right are far-removed from other pics. And at the Death section, the image comes between the header and the left margin. So your argument essentially comes down to, "I like it better the old way." Whatever. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Staggering the images need not be rigidly applied, while separating headers from the left margin looks awkward and inconsistent. So I am again flipping the images of the Domesday page and headstone, alleviating the conflict. I hope we may compromise with this positioning. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Have you ever heard of using those fun little things called edit summaries, by the way? It would be nice if you did, so that I could figure out what you are doing with all your edits without having to click on the various diffs to compare things. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Most are minor edits of grammar or wording, with no change to substance. Where I do more than small changes, I note it as copyediting, though that has been rarely necessary on a page as well-written as this one. Need I note "add comma" for each edit? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be polite to the folks who watchlist the article - even a "ce" would tell us that you're doing that rather than changing something more substantial. It's only polite to use edit summaries whenever you edit - your aim should be to always use an edit summary. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of "conqueror"

(Continued from Talk:Norman_conquest_of_England#etymology_of_.22conquest.22 regarding this edit.)

There are two questions: (1) is it true/backed up by sources, and (2) is it relevant. (Whether sources think it is relevant doesn't matter - Wikipedia editors can use their own judgement on this.) For the first, yes, it is backed up with sources. The age of the sources doesn't matter, as long as the sources are reliable. It is not just William Blackstone's opinion. This claim also appears in John Miller (1803), An Historical View of the English Government, and the meaning of these words in discussed in Henry Spelman's "Glossarium archaiologicum" published in 1687. For the second, yes, it is relevant - titles and styles of the article's subject are relevant - it's relevant to talk about the meaning of "Wilhelmus Conquaestor" and how this did not mean that he was a conqueror in the modern sense. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No modern biographer discusses it. Something over 200 years old is outdated scholarship. The fact that the modern scholars do not discuss this means it's not relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As another point - I don't see how anyone could argue that William did NOT conquer in the fully modern/military sense either. He invaded with about 10,000 or so men. Landed, fought a big whacking battle, wandered over the countryside, got everyone else to realize they couldn't gather another army just then, got crowned, and then defeated three or four rebellions. That surely counts as a military conquest! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ealdgyth here, I'm not seeing an indication that it's relevant. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Ealdgyth here. It is a fascinating factoid and perhaps there is somewhere on Wikipedia for it, but I don't think it belongs here. --John (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not intended to say that he did not conquer England. It's about the origin of his titles "Conquaestor" and "Conqueror". Following a reference in an 1859 edition of Blackstone available online (I don't know if the reference was in the original) I found another reference here "The history of the common law of England" by Matthew Hale (published 1739, although presumably written before 1676 when the author died) (see especially from page 107 onwards). Anyway the reference is here in case it is decided to go in to this or some other article in some form. Count Truthstein (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs to have the word "conqueror" explained to the reader. Such a sidebar would be tangential—it would mostly be about the concept of jure belli, the practical aspect of war in which might makes right, treading on local laws with impunity. Certainly we can say that William never styled himself "Conqueror" and that it is believed that none called him such during his life. (This is not currently in the article.) Nobody today questions whether military victory and subsequent dominion of the conquered land and people is actually conquest: it is. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Certainly we can say that William never styled himself "Conqueror" and that it is believed that none called him such during his life." - this isn't in the article because no modern biographer says anything of the kind. I've double and triple checked both Douglas' biography and the two biographies by Bates (his book and the ODNB entry)... and nothing is mentioned about the name "the Conqueror". If the two big biographies don't mention it - it's probably not worth mentioning. I've also double checked all the recent histories of the time and there isn't any mention of this either. I'm not saying it isn't in some source - it's just not in anything recently written that I've got and read (and since I've reworked this article, the Norman Conquest article and the Battle of Hastings articles in the last year and a half, I've read most of the recent works on the time period.) If it's not prominent enough for me to have read it in all the reading I've done on the subject both recently and across my life - it's probably not enough weight to put into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Terminology of publishers...

Nnemo, I've reverted because I believe that you are misunderstanding the need for internationalisation. The publisher of the document concerned is the Royal Household (as per the legal copyright on the webpage concerned). Neither they, or anyone else I'm aware of, calls them the Royal Household of the United Kingdom, any more than the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is called the Oxford (UK) Dictionary of National Biography, for example. Bibliographies use the actual name of a publisher, not the version you might use for the title of a Wikipedia article (which quite rightly can add additional clauses in). I've added the location of the publisher into the template to avoid any confusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Marriage

This section should include Matilda Queen of England Flanders Birth 24 Nov 1031 in Of Flanders, France. Matilda was England's smallest queen, according to the Guinness Book of Records Death 02 Nov 1083 in Caen, Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.98.32 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Should this not have a section on his marriage to Matilda? That was a very important event in his life. Also, a claim in Maltilda's article states that the Pope objected to their marriage due to consanguinity. That would be another live event worth mentioning. I will say though that I feel her article needs to expand that claim as well. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 07:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out the last paragraph of Consolidation of Power. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Importance to the English Language

Nobody to mention one of the most essential changes: the deep influence of old French in English language. I know it's not a popular subject but it's still a reality of that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.72.102 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

See Norman conquest of England - where this is discussed. It's part of the broader impact of the conquest, not specifically tracing to William. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Aw, pull the other one. Of course it specifically traces to William's success at Hastings and subsequent policies w/r/t the language and to the local Saxon lords and deserves some (brief) mention in this article. That said, I think

The impact on England of William's conquest was profound; changes in the Church, aristocracy, culture, and language of the country have persisted into modern times.

in the Legacy section is fine, as long as the lead section is entirely devoted to his life and not discussing his legacy at all. (If it starts going into his legacy, the change to the language would need to be included there as well.) — LlywelynII 23:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Alt names

Per MOS, we should be including the major alternative names he went under: not just his Norman name but certainly his Latin one and probably his Saxon. There was no sourcing provided for the existing 'Norman' name, so not certain it was period Old Norman rather than something from the later forms of the language. If citations are being included, it's probably better to pull something off of JSTOR but the usage can be checked here or here for the Old English and here or [la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasciculus:William_I_to_Stephen_f_8v.jpg here] for the period Latin (the diacretic next to the m is the siglum for -us). His sepulcher reads Guillelmus Conquestor with two ⟨L⟩s and Francis Bacon and Camden wrote Guilielmus with an extra ⟨I⟩, so I'm not really sure what the sourcing for the Latin Wiktionary article's current form is. Presumably it's just the current standardization (and could therefore be removed from this article), but it might reflect older use somewhere I'm not seeing. — LlywelynII 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

But did he actually use those names or were they just names the chancery assigned him? He would have used the Old Norman and recognized it, but we do try to avoid cluttering up the lead with lots of alternative names that really belong in scholarly works not in a general purpose encyclopedia. (I don't really care if the Old Norman disappears, actually. You won't see Britannica having all these alternative names in different languages, but ... in order to avoid "ownership" ... I left the Old Norman in ... as it was at least a name he'd have used and recognized.). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment came in while I was writing it, but included some changes and additional links above. — LlywelynII 00:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And, again, yes, the Latin and Old English should stay. MOS:FORLANG. The criterion isn't whether he himself spoke Latin or Old English; they are languages of people and works closely associated with this figure. (Although, yes, to avoid clutter, they should go in the infobox or a name section.) — LlywelynII 01:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Collegiality and ownership

I read the sections above. Could we discuss what needs to be done? I helped (in a very minor way) Ealdgyth to get this to FA status and I am not well chuffed to see accusations of ownership being thrown around. The changes seem pretty minor and not worth arguing about. I consider myself a bit of an MoS stickler so I may be able to mediate, if there is any appetite for that. What do you think? --John (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the changes (looking at this diff), and it seems a mixed bag to me. Some of the changes seem fine to me -- the rewording of the sentence starting "After a long struggle", for example. Some I would prefer to see reverted: for example, the addition of the variant names, and a couple of the wording changes. I'd like to suggest that we follow BRD here; LlywelynII's changes aren't unreasonable, but there is legitimate debate about them. I suggest we revert to this version and then re-add LlywelynII's changes after discussion to ensure we have consensus on them; it seems at least possible that not all will have consensus. LlywelynII, any objection if I revert and we go through your suggested changes piecemeal? Separating them into individual edits will make them a good deal easier to discuss. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Mike's suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason for a revert, but there's also no problem with discussing the separate changes separately. That's what we've been doing here. — LlywelynII 06:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, sorry to have dischuffed anyone, but blanket reverts of 'mixed bags' over things like not liking templates are definitionally OWNERy. Again, I'm sure it comes from a good place and am grateful for Ms Ealdgyth's work maintaining the page. We seem to have a nice quorum of editors to look through the changes. Kindly don't hold my brusqueness against the edits themselves or misapply general policy in a way that makes the page less pleasant or helpful to its readers. (Just like we're not going to precisely follow WP:LEADSENTENCE and start this out William the Conqueror..., we should find phrasing that distinguishes William's numbering better than the old way did. Something like William III might be a compromise, but it seems clunky to me to have to bold "William I" twice in the lead here. Better to realize, like Empress Matilda, that there are occasional reasons for exception. Similarly, the redundant redundancy of the redundant phrasing used to link to the Norman conquest article. No one is actually confused or expecting a link to successful invasion, but there's certainly some other better way to get the same idea across.)

I believe the guy's Old English, Norman, and Latin names deserve inclusion in the article (per MOS and general helpfulness) and not just in the invisible PERSONDATA. I think it goes in the infobox to avoid leadsentence clutter. If you guys strongly feel differently, are there any good reasons? or you just want to see citations or a name section instead? — LlywelynII 05:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarly to Ian, I would support Mike's suggestion; BRD is typically a good way to progress this sort of issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ownership

It's great that Ealdgyth is keeping an eye on the page to maintain its featured status.

It's a bit iffy that 120+ of the last 500 edits came from [her].

It's obviously just wrong if [she] thinks that removing language formatting is a good idea; that removing {{nowrap}} or {{circa}} templates that preserve phrasing at different screen sizes is a good idea; that it's better phrasing to say "he had been Duke of Normandy since 1035 under the style William II" (without a link to the off-label and unfamiliar use of style) instead of "he had ruled Normandy since 1035 as Duke William II" (with links to both the article on the duchy and the article on the list of dukes); or that it's an "easter egg link" (instead of "better writing") to say "he launched a successful invasion of England" instead of the utterly redundant "he [i.e., the guy we just introduced as a Norman and "the Conqueror"] launched the Norman conquest of England in 1066".

Again, appreciate the general watchfulness and fight against vandalism, but we should all be aiming for improvement and for phrasing that is neither clunky nor unhelpful for our non-scholarly readers. Would appreciate if other editors could talk [her] down from his current ownership, restore the most needful changes and links to the lead, and find improved phrasing everyone can agree with. — LlywelynII 23:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

One - I'm not a he. And ... how many of those last 120 edits I've done have been reverting vandalism - this article gets quite a lot. It's very annoying to be accused of "ownership" right out of the box without even attempting to say "hey, I thought this part of my edit was an improvement"... instead, it's so much more collegial to make a bold edit with a lot of changes and have it reverted (with an explanation in the edit summary) and then come out swinging about "ownership" rather than try to be collegial. Another thing - it is indeed an easter egg link if the reader is expected to figure out "successful invasion" will link not to a definition of "invasion" but instead to an article on the conquest of England (see WP:EASTEREGG). And we do not need to use the markup for dashes - it's perfectly fine to use the correct dash. We don't use "Duke X" as article titles - so it would be a bad idea to bold "Duke X" as an alternate name. And the "circa" templates are not required and I find them counter-intuitive to all the other ways we link things. I find just plain linking to our article on "circa" is probably better for the casual reader. It's also easier for the casual editor to figure out that markup than deal with (yet another) template. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

i) Eh, I could fall back on grammar, but you're right: I had forgotten what 'Edith' used to look like.

ii) I did go out of my way to thank you for your efforts: I'm sure this page does get a lot of vandalism. Thanks again! As for your 'annoyance', though, how did you think blanket reverts without any discussion or any attempt to maintain certain improvements makes the rest of us feel? ; ) (Hint: It's not collegial.)

iii) As for your misunderstanding of easter eggs, no, as foolish as some readers can be, the context is very solidly established. We are not expecting too much for them to think "he launched a successful invasion" will link to the specific successful invasion in question and not to the "successful invasion" article, whatever you think that might possibly involve. The policy you're invoking is designed to avoid links like "he launched a successful invasion" or "he launched a successful invasion" where the context is absent or completely misleading. Doesn't apply here in the least.

Of course, you don't take my word for that (hence, the revert and the talkpage appeal for some other editors to chime in one way or the other).

iv) You're right about the dash: if that was an ndash already, that's my bad. It displayed as a hyphen to me.

v) There's nothing wrong with using Duke in a title as a natural dab, although it's usually formatted as an epithet rather than a title. That has no bearing on bolding it. That distinguishes William's style as Duke William II from his style as King William I and is more correct and MOS-compliant than phrasing which confuses or conflates the two. Remember, we're aiming to make things clear and easy to read.

vi) The circa templates are needful unless you also include a non-breaking space. You can format them to link. — LlywelynII 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's late - and I've asked for help from other editors on style issues ... as they are more informed/etc than I am. Other opinions only help. But the King William I style is wrong per the MOS - see WP:HONORIFIC. The dashes were correct as I use a script to make sure they ARE correct. Nor are circa templates at all required. I explained why I find them less than helpful - but I see they have returned. Easter egg is actually quite relevant - it's not clear that you're referring to a specific event (and as the MOS guideline points out - the link is lost with spoken or printed versions ... so it loses context.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As above and below, it's not a violation of WP:HONORIFIC, which is a general style guide for general formatting. Here we have two separate names that need to be clearly and naturally dabbed; it's not at all an uncommon thing. It's just like how WP:LEADSENTENCE actually advocates that we start the article with "William the Conqueror..." It's a general policy that meets an exception here. Generally speaking, templates are preferable since if the general policy changes for some reason, it's easier to fix everything at once. That said, there's nothing wrong with writing the code out; I frequently have to do that because of the bad coding at {{zh}}, for instance. But you should include a non-breaking space after your c. if that's the way you're going to do it. It's perfectly clear that we're not linking to successful invasion, but I'm sure the extra editors who are coming in can find some phrasing everyone likes. — LlywelynII 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

LlywelynII, is your tone perhaps a little unnecessarily aggressive? AGF, please. I don't think anything Ealdgyth has said or done implies a WP:OWN problem. I assure you, writing Featured Content requires constant care and attention of the article to prevent it from being degraded. We need more editors to write Featured Content and then look after it. It is also not WP:OWN to expect other editors to respect the in-use styles of an article. Please consider reverting your contentious edits and getting consensus for them here. --Laser brain (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Laser brain, reread the comment. It does assume good faith and in fact thanks her for her work. Blanket reverts of improvements to phrasing and formatting does imply an WP:OWN problem, albeit good natured and born out of months of daily maintenance. And we are talking about here: kindly share your opinion on the substance of the changes. For instance, Ms Ealdgyth and I (good-naturedly) disagree on whether it should read "William I ... William II ..." or "King William I... Duke William II ..." and whether or not its unnecessary to say that a Norman conqueror's "successful invasion" is a Norman conqueror's "Norman conquest". Sorry if my tone rubbed you the wrong way, but regardless what do you think's best for the article? — LlywelynII 01:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) LlywelynII, I don't have any specific comments about the decisions requiring subject matter knowledge. But I will say that you have introduced some changes that are purely subjective (the dashes), and some that actually introduce MoS breaches (WP:EASTEREGG and WP:HONORIFIC, for example). Anything you've done that amounts to a stylistic preference or that is actually incorrect per MoS should be reverted. --Laser brain (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I still contend that there's nothing remotely in violation of EASTEREGG and that you two are misreading HONORIFIC. (In fine, yes, "in general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name" but here it is necessary to quickly clarify what the I & II are talking about.) But you at least think there is a violation, so that's a vote for Ms Ealdgyth in any case. (You honestly think readers will be expecting a link to "successful invasion"?) — LlywelynII 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I never presume to underestimate the ability of the populace to be historically illiterate. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd have a snarky reposte here about the article's continuing use of style, but you did go back and insert a link at least. Good show. — LlywelynII 03:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of recent changes

I've reverted per the above discussion. Here are the changes in question; if I've missed one, please add bullets as necessary.

• Add alternative names to persondata. The revised list of alternative names would become (new names in italics): William I, William the Conqueror, William the Bastard, Williame, Willelm, Willelmus, Gulielmus, Guilielmus, Gullielmus.

  I'm not very familiar with persondata so I don't have a strong opinion about this, but in general I would only add a name like this if it's listed in a reliable source, and in that case I would expect to see it in the main text of the article. Hence I think this should depend on the outcome of the discussion on adding alternative names to the main article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'll add that we should be using secondary sources, not primary sources, for alternate names. Especially for alternate spellings - as that would greatly depend on when the primary source was published and the choices of the translator. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  WP:PERSONDATA is metadata that doesn't clutter the main article and provides functionality. This field is expressly for information that we're not including in the running text of the article and, no, they don't bother with sourcing, although I provided it elsewhere. Without the metadata, when people search for the alternate names here or at Google, they're not going to be able to find this guy except by unpleasant daisychaining through old Google Books in foreign languages. Of course it should be included. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Change "1024–1028" to "between 1024 and 1028" in persondata.

  I don't see any particular reason for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  A) That's not a valid reason for anything. B) Grammatically, the present phrasing means he was born over a four year period. There's your reason. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Add alternative names to the titletext parameter of the infobox.

  I don't like this change -- even if the alternative names wind up in the article, the infobox should be restricted to the highest-value information, which doesn't include this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  I would prefer to see these alternate language names (as opposed to alternate modern English names) in the infobox where they don't clutter up the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly this. Mike has infoboxes a bit backwards. They're important info at a glance, yes, but they're exactly where we put information like alt language names when there are enough of them that they're cluttering the lead. Cf. the treatment of Chinese names. William's Latin, Old English, and Norman French names are all on topic, as already pointed out (with policy links) above. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Start the article "King William I" instead of "William I".

  I'm opposed to this; it would be quite non-standard for the English monarchy articles. I don't recall if the MoS says anything about this style. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Not in line with the MOS or with current practice. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  The current version sorts out the King I-Duke II issue clearly. Adding the titles makes the opening wordy without apparent improvement. And the MoS directly states that honorifics should not be included. An IP user was recently blocked for repeatedly violating this standard. It would be odd if we turned around and started applying it on one monarch page while blocking a user who adds it to others. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  There's no problem with consistency: in other articles, the title is redundant whereas here it is necessary to disambiguate the two titles. The current version does not clearly sort them, hence the edit. An alternative phrasing—e.g. ...William II of Normandy—should be found even if you don't prefer the one I offered. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  The article has been through FA review and the opening has been stable for two years. No other user has raised the issue of the clarity of the King-Duke distinction. You appear to be the only user who does not think the current version is clear. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Add "as" to "sometimes [known] as William the Bastard".

  Fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  I defer to Eric or John, who copyedited the article before FAC, and who almost assuredly removed the "as" (as I would have almost assuredly put it in originally). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Add underlined text to this footnote: "Although note that he was only described as the "Bastard" in sources written by non-Normans."

  OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Frowned on in the MOS - see MOS:OPED where "phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone." are depreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth's right; I'd forgotten about the guidance to avoid phrases like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  We obviously have to use what the source provides but, looking at this again, another way to address the awkwardness of the note would be to actually give the sources who do call him "the Bastard". Were there any apart from Welsh and Saxon ones? — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Link "King of England" to List of English kings rather than English monarchy.

  Generally I think an article link is better than a list. Any reason for this change? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Certainly when I click those links, I'm trying to get to the lists of other kings, although it's perfectly valid (and may accurately fall under EASTEREGG) that it could direct to the article on the office itself. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  indifferent - but slightly prefer the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Change "The descendant of [[Viking]] raiders, he had been [[Duke of Normandy]] since 1035 under the style '''William II'''" to "The descendant of [[Viking]] raiders, he had ruled [[Duchy of Normandy|Normandy]] since 1035 as {{nowrap|'''[[Duke of Normandy|Duke]] William II'''}}"

  This seems OK to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  I don't see the point of the nowrap here - it's very unlikely that a reader is going to be that confused by this being broken between two lines. Trying to control the output to this level just makes things much more difficult to edit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Anything important enough to bold is important enough to make it display clearly to all of our readers. If you prefer to use   instead, that's fine although I'm not sure how well it works with people searching for terms. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Change "After a long struggle to establish his power, by 1060 his hold on [[Normandy]] was secure, and he launched the [[Norman conquest of England]] in 1066" to "After a long struggle to establish his power, his reign was secure by 1060; in 1066, he launched a [[Norman conquest of England|successful invasion]] of [[Saxon England|England]]"

  I think the existing phrasing "After a long struggle ... by 1060" isn't ideal. I don't think the new version of the first part of the sentence completely fixes the problem, though; the issue is that "after" and "by 1060" are both describing the same point in time, so there's some redundancy. I can't quickly come up with a better phrase, but this could be improved. In the second half of the sentence, I'm not as concerned by the Easter Egg nature of the link from "successful invasion" to Norman conquest of England as Ealdgyth is, but I think it's a poor choice because the phrase "Norman Conquest" is very well known and it should be mentioned under that name in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah. I changed things that felt awkward but am certainly open to other ways to get the points across. Regarding your thought that there's some redundancy in the first sentence, what about:
      After early struggles to establish his power, his reign was finally secure by 1060..."
  along with whatever phrasing we work out for the second half? We don't need to source that in the lead, right, given that it's dealt with in #Consolidation_of_power below? — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  I don't think that does it -- we would still have "after" and the date. This: "William struggled for years to establish his power. By 1060 ..." avoids the redundancy issue but reads choppily. Or "William struggled for years to establish his power, but by 1060 his hold ..." would work; it places two "William"s next to each other in the text but that's probably OK since they're different Williams. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  I object to hiding the link to "Norman Conquest" also - it's what's he's best known for and it should be linked plainly, not hidden in a piped link. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  And I object to the idea that we need to describe a conquering Norman named the Conqueror as responsible for "the Norman Conquest" within the first paragraph. That's why we brought in other editors. ; ) — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's every change LlywelynII made. Please add further bullets for other changes to be discussed, or if I missed anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

One more -

• the addition of the circa template instead of just a plain link.

  I prefer to not see that - because it just adds complexity to the editing of the article for no great benefit (as I mentioned above, trying to control the typographical output of an article to that degree is a futile exercise when you cannot begin to guess what sort of devices people will use.). I would prefer the circa and no wrap templates to be gone. And to remove all the html markup - as the dashes can easily be kept "correct" by using the dash script. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Formatted into a bullet point. As above, it really makes no difference to the page as long as a   is inserted after the c. but use of templates for formatting like that is vaguely better inasmuch as it makes any future change to the policy easier to fix quickly. (I'm sure someone would also rig up a bot if that happened, though, so it's not the biggest problem.) The edit to the dash was because it displayed as a hyphen in my browser and I was just being safe as I went but, looking now, she's right that it obviously displays as an en dash and that's all that's important. — LlywelynII 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

request to change king of England to king of the English due to official title being king of the english 108.31.127.78 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What sources call it that? Cannolis (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2015

change king of the England to king if the English bpoic Bpoic (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quit editwarring across multiple articles - present sources that say he is commonly known in the secondary literature as "King of the English" and not "King of England". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You know quite well that you won't get your way unless you can get consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms#New user changing "King of the English" to "King of England". Favonian (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2015

( This is for a school project for my college course. I had to choose a topic, and cite my information on said topic on a mock website as well as use wikipedia for my citings. Upon doing so my final task was to take a screenshot of the area as to which i was contributing to wikipedia and edit the section with my annotated bibliography. The section i am trying to add to would be the very beginning part on wikipedia the very first section is where my annotated bibliography would need to go if we can add it in there it would be perfect. below is the information to which i need to add.)

While William was a child he was growing up and denied by his own father being he was born outside of marriage with one of his father's affairs. William grew up in fear of being assassinated and he grew up in fear and his guardians were being killed one by one, until he finally escaped during the night and ran away to his mother's estate where he lived with her for a little while. Upon growing older he returned and reclaimed what was rightfully his. He fought alongside the King who at the time was King Henry. He and King Henry had a great relationship up until one of their last battles together where King Henry ended up fighting alongside an enemy to try and dethrone William and take his power away in which they had failed and William became stronger than he was after defeating the King. Even though William was just over 5 feet 2 inches in height he was considered very tall for that period of time. William was born around the 1020's to Robert I, Duke of Normandy which was an affair style birth, he was known from his birth until his death as William The Bastard even though he had fought so hard for his people and kept control of the land and made it hard to take over that territory. William later on went on to fight and keep winning and conquering new territories as well as making hi presence fierce and known, until his final years where he died in 1087 while on a campaign in Northern France. Bananas33 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Uh. No. Utterly unsourced. If your teacher is asking you to edit wikipedia for a grade, they need to make sure you edit within the policies of wikipedia, including WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per Ealdgyth. The text is already of high FA quality and went through a rigorous screening process; we don't need the proposed unsourced text (which also needs some copy editing, by the way) downgrading the article's quality. Biblioworm 03:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

On the box on the right, there is the standard box listing things such as the ISSUE of this article's main subject. Some of them already have hyperlinks to the person listed. But some do not. So I suggest creating hyperlinks for them, such as for

Issue Robert Curthose * Hyperlink missing Richard William II * Hyperlink missing Matilda Cecilia Henry I of England Adeliza Constance Adela, Countess of Blois

SUMMARY: I suggest adding these hyperlinks to Robert Curthose and William II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Curthose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II_of_England Terence Lee MD (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but as these names are linked in the previous section of the box it would be excessive to link them again. In general links only appear once in an article, although a further instance can appear in the opening lead and / or the infobox if appropriate. Repeating links within the infobox itself is not necessary since it draws attention away from first-time links. Bencherlite^Talk 11:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

appellation of the Bastard

David Hume, in his monumental History of England, vol. 1, makes the claim contrary to note [a] in the article that William, being so unashamed of his birth, assumed himself the appellation of 'the Bastard' in some of his own letters and charters. See footnote on page 203. Philologick (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think historians have moved on a bit from 1776. Just like i wouldn't use Gibbon for historical analysis of the Roman Empire, nor would I use Hume for the Norman Conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle Northam

there seems to be no entry for the Battle of Northam 1069 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-35633783 that is getting a bit of press now. and then there is the battle of Stafford also 1069 http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/stoke/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8927000/8927948.stm which gets only a brief mention They seem significant I'd add some stuff myself but since I'd not heard of either battle before today I'm not sure I'd do the best job.

Neither "battle" is named as such in either of the main biographies of William. Nor do they get called "battles" in any of the books on the Conquest I have. It's going to need more coverage by historians before it merits coverage here in William's article. Given the news media's habits of sensationalizing new finds, it's probably best to wait for scholarly coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

really appreciate your view, Ealdgyth, I guess I thought Northam must be significant as the BBC link said it killed over 3000 people but, as you say I think, the source cited might not be reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that the events (the rising in the West and the invasion by Harold's sons) are both covered in the article. They just aren't given the names that the BBC uses - I've yet to see a scholarly work that uses those names. For Stafford - see the second paragraph of the "English resistance" section. The invasion by Harold's sons is in the last bit second paragraph of the "First actions" section. The problem with articles on "big subjects" such as William is that it is of necessity an overview - you just can't go into too much detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fictional References

In 2012, a fictional account of the life of Robert Curthose, William the Conqueror’s eldest son and Robert de Bellême in 'Bellême The Norman Warrior' authored by Roy Stedall-Humphryes was published through Amazon as a Kindle eBook and as a paperback.

Roystedall (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Trivia. There are tons of references to William the Conqueror in books. We certainly don't cover ebooks .. especially when someone is self-promoting. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

Blank request - nothing to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does it say it's unknown why his marriage to Matilda was disallowed???

Matilda's mother Adela was William's father's brother's widow. Even though they weren't closely related by blood (Matilda was the result of her mother's second marriage, not William's uncle's child), at the time, Adela's children were still given first-cousin status to William in canonical law because she had been his uncle's legal wife. There is nothing confusing about this at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.5.33 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Many of those rules expanding kinship came after William and Matilda's marriage. The secondary sources are all in agreement that we don't know why the marriage was not sanctioned at first. The council which ruled against did not give a reason and there is no direct evidence for when and why the papacy finally did sanction the marriage. For that matter, we don't know when the marriage actually was performed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, it isn't even clear that Adela, Matilda's mother, was the same Adela who married Richard III. Elizabeth Van Houts, in her translation of William of Jumièges, concluded they were distinct women. 50.37.123.210 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Also note that there is another seemingly well-documented relationship within the prohibited degree, both being descended from Rollo of Normandy. 50.37.123.210 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Illegitimate children?

The article claims that there's no evidence of illegitimate children, but Dugdale volume I, p.436 states that William had an illegitimate son, called William Peverell, by the daughter of Ingelric of London. 2001:14BB:140:18EF:D1C9:8597:B2DF:16BE (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that William Dugdale is a bit outdated, considering he died in 1686. No modern biographer or genealogist considers this a credible claim. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Layout

MOS:IMGLOC advises to "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar." The large charts on this page were sandwiching and interrupting text, so I adjusted the format to produce this layout, with the text clear of the charts, and spreading the images more evenly, per WP:LAYIM. Those changes have now been reverted, such that (on a large monitor) the first chart squeezes text down to some lines with only one or two words; the second chart is placed literally in the middle of a sentence, such that we see the first three words, then the chart, then the sentence continues. Please explain how this is preferable to my version, where the text was unperturbed and not squeezed down to one and two word lines. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We're never going to get text unsandwiched, though. It's impossible to actually account for every monitor setup. I moved the charts to the top of the sections so that they no longer left large chunks of white space at the end. The charts look very odd on the left. And the images were weighted towards the right, I tried to stagger them more so that they were evenly spread out between left and right aligned. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My layout did achieve unsandwiched text, and the charts look better on the left than in the middle of a sentence, or where the text becomes squeezed to single-word lines. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But it produced a huge amount of white space on my screen, which looked just godawful. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Screen Shot 2016-10-14 at 9.31.01 AM.png

Scaling the sizes back to 550 and 600 alleviates the problem on a large monitor, but may be too small on laptop monitors. Making the charts a bit larger also resolves the issue on a large monitor, and looks OK on my laptop. Please see this example at 750px and see if it looks acceptable on other monitors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Looked much better - I went ahead and went with 750px for both charts. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving one image up a paragraph because it is extending into the following section. Appears to work well on both my monitors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine on my setup - and I opened it up in a new window and resized it to various sizes and it still worked well enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Walther, which Walther?

Hello. In the article, at the "Duke of Normandy" section, there is the following sentence: "It was said that Walter, William's maternal uncle (...)", but it is not said who is this Walter. I read the article and the only person I met was Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville, but your article is said that Walter Giffard "is the cousin of William the Conqueror". What is right? Walter is an uncle or cousin of William the Conqueror? Who is this Walter? --Zoldyick (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

These are two different people. The uncle in question is not Walter Giffard, it is Walter of Falaise, thought to have been son of Fulbert of Falaise, William's maternal grandfather. 50.37.102.193 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Zoldyick (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

81.98.187.124 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)I need to write about Willaims family

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. clpo13_(talk) 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Lineage

should it be mentioned that Matilda was a descendant of Alfred the Great? It helped him and his children to legitimize their claim. In Matilda's Wikipedia article the following text can be found:

Matilda’s principal attribute was her descent from Charlemagne and her many royal ancestors, her closest being Robert II of France. She was the niece of King Henry I of France, William's suzerain, and at his death in 1060, first cousin to his successor King Philip I of France. A member of the aristocracy she was closely related to most of the royal families of Europe. A marriage to a member of the (Carolingian) royal family was a means of upward mobility for a soldier or nobleman like William. Her descent from Alfred the Great (whose daughter Ælfthryth was the mother of Arnulf I, Count of Flanders, and great-great-great-great-grandmother of Matilda) also proved a legitimizing factor as queen of England. See: Hilton, Queen Consort (Pegasus, 2010), p. 17; Régine Le Jan, 'Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility', Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), pp. 56, n. 14, 57; A. Wareham, Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia (Boydell Press, 2005), p. 3.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.46.97 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC) 

It's perfectly fine in Matilda's article, not really relevant here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fairly tall vs. "quite tall"

The source for the "quite tall" is Bates William the Conqueror p. 115 where Bates says "William's tomb was first opened in 1522 and was said then to contain the skeleton of a large man with exceptionally long arms and legs. As a consequence of the tomb being despoiled by Calvinists later in the sixteenth century, only a single thigh bone survives now. This was examined in 1961 and again recently, and on this fragile basis it is thought that William was around 1.75 m (5 ft 10 in) tall, a remarkable height for a medieval man." "Remarkable height" is not "fairly tall". Remarkable means ... out of the ordinary or exceptional. Furthermore - contemporary descriptions describe him as very tall. David Douglas, describing him, says that based on contemporary descriptions, William was "great in stature". Again, this is not "fairly tall". Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we know what the average height was for an Englishman and/or Norman at the time?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If the source says "a remarkable height for a medieval man", the implication is that the average height was much less. If we find another source that gives an average height close to 5 ft 10 in, then we would have a conflict in the sources, which we'd have to resolve. As it stands the source seems unambiguous -- "remarkable" is quite a strong word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

From Wiktionary usage notes on "quite": "* This is a non-descriptive qualifier, similar to fairly and rather and somewhat. Used where a plain adjective needs to be modified, but cannot be qualified. When spoken, the meaning can vary with the tone of voice and stress. He was quite big can mean anything from "not exactly small" to "almost huge"." Is that term not ambiguous?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that an argument for making it "very tall" or "remarkably tall", not "fairly tall"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know because I don't know the height of an average male Englishman or Norman in the 11th-12th century.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There is an analysis of the height of the medieval male plus other useful data in Death and Burial in Medieval England by Christopher Daniel. Based on that data, William's height would probably be slightly above the mean and unremarkable? Wilfridselsey (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you for that link, @Wilfridselsey:. @Mike Christie:, his link indicates that the average male height in Medieval England was a little over ~171cm (page 123), which amounts to about 5 feet, 6 inches. That would make King William only about 4 inches taller than his kinfolk likely were. I would claim that is only about somewhat taller, not truly remarkable. If this is the case, then should the term just be modified to "somewhat taller" or should a note be included to clairfy including average height of medieval Englishmen, or...?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that if "quite" does not properly express "remarkable", which is what the source says, then we should use a stronger word. Wilfridselsey, I would rather go with the explicit statement of a reliable source that his height was remarkable than draw our own conclusions from a dataset, but if there are more sources that can be introduced that say his height wasn't unusually great then we should change the article accordingly. Sigehelmus, I'm not sure now what your edit was intended for -- I thought you were changing it from "quite tall" to "fairly tall" to reduce the implication that his height was unusual, but then the quote you gave made "quite" and "fairly" sound very similar in effect. What's the problem with the current wording in your view? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Most historians seem to refer to William of Malmesbury's description of William the Conqueror as 'of proper height and stout', I think that Victorian historians interpreted this as big and tall. Modern historians have a more scientific approach based on the measurement of Williams femur. Morris does say explicitly that William was only just above average height in his book William I: England's Conqueror. Wilfridselsey (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, the source used in the article claims William was 5'10", but your book claims he was 5'8". Which is true? @Wilfridselsey:--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know! Can speculate that the original calculations were in metric and the formula used to convert to imperial wasn't that great! Wilfridselsey (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, should both sources be included that read that there is a conflict between the estimated heights?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Bates says above that William was estimated to be about 1.75 m - it's obviously a conversion error, not a problem between the two sources. 173 cm or "about 1.75 m" is practically equivalent. Frankly, I wouldn't go into great depth here. I'm perfectly fine with just freaking stating the height and nothing else. We certainly can't base anything on research of comparing the estimated height to some other source - that would be WP:OR. We can just cut out the "quite tall for the time." Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess just leaving it out also works.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go with Ealdgyth and just give William's height, and the average height for the medieval male and let people make up their own minds. Terms such as 'tall', 'very tall' etc are somewhat subjective. 'Above average', however can be qualified. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

14.203.140.93 (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

asasa№–#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[]]]]

No change requested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Descendant of Charlemagne

Important information for this article: William was a descendant of Charlemagne. It is easy to check by clicking links in the articles (parents - children). You can place the information into the article. I have no possibility to do this (View source). CHECK:

Charlemagne — Pepin of Italy — Bernard of Italy — Pepin, Count of Vermandois — Herbert I, Count of Vermandois — Herbert II, Count of Vermandois — Robert of Vermandois — Adele of Meaux — Ermengarde-Gerberga of Anjou — Judith of Brittany — Robert I, Duke of Normandy — William the Conqueror

- 2.93.193.244 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

Why is this information important to the article? Not every fact is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• The fact is part of his bio. The most known relative of William is Karl, of course. And so on .... 2.93.224.110 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is relevant for his genealogy, but not for an encyclopedia article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

To amplify this, WP:NOTGENEALOGY dictates that genealogy is appropriate when it helps to understand the subject, while WP:NOR means we can't draw our own conclusions about the matter - if a scholarly secondary work suggests that William's descent from Charlemagne was a factor in his motivations or how he was perceived by his contemporaries, then it can be considered for inclusion (if it is not deemed WP:UNDUE). Otherwise it is just trivia, however curious one may find the connection. Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

secondary biographies do not make anything of william's descent from Charlemagne...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Such articles contain genealogical tree. I suggest create tree. 95.29.136.176 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, you are wrong in some part (genealogical tree in articles contains info from secondary biographies, tree does not contain additional references). To make this article better, genealogy must be placed (like in a large number of other articles about different kings) 2.93.175.199 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Pointing to Wikipedia articles of lesser quality as indicating what must be done to a Featured Article is a flawed strategy. In fact, many of the charts you mention, found in these other articles, are violations of Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:UNDUE) and probably should be removed, rather than serving as a justification for adding such a chart to this page. Agricolae (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree; neither a chart/tree, nor a mention of Charlemagne as an ancestor, seems justified to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Genealogical charts ARE in the article - they detail the relatives that the secondary sources think are important. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, should have been more specific. I meant ones going back to Charlemagne. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And just to make it clear to the IP who initiated this discussion, the two charts here are both similar to ones that have appeared in scholarly studies addressing the relevant sections. The first is based on charts in a study of the political and family milieu of the Normandy in the immediate pre-Conquest years, Predatory Kingship, while some form of the second, more or less, has appeared in numerous source discussing the Conquest, though I had Barlow's Edward the Confessor closest to hand at the time I made it. In both cases, scholars have used similar charts to illustrate the relevant historical phenomena, and they are used here, not for their own sake or just because we can, but primarily to show the relationships among people specifically named in the text of the article as playing a role in the struggles of the time, not to convey novel information such as the identify of William's father's mother's mother's mother's father's father's father's father's father's father's father, however famous that person may be - this is the same reason we don't say (or show) that William is an ancestor of Henry VIII or Elizabeth II. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox title.

Why can't we have William I in the infobox heading? Name & regnal number is the usual practice for infoboxes of monarchial bios. For goodness sakes, the article intro begins with William I. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox royalty, the name in the infobox heading should be the most common name. It was established in the discussion at Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 1#Requested move February 2010 that 'William the Conqueror' is the commonest name. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Guillaume le Batard

Should the name by which he was known in Normandy be included in the article ? RGCorris (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is, in its English form. We don't need the old Norman form - it's very unlikely that anyone really is informed by an old dialect form of his name. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Worse yet, this isn't even an old Norman form - it is the modern French (derived from the Parisian French dialect, and quite divergent from the Norman French, with both the G-u substitution for W- and the -aume ending being quirks of this dialect). In Norman French it would have looked more like the forms on the Tapestry, which is not consistent. (addressed to the original proposal) The only reason for including a modern foreign form is if a sizable number of scholars writing in English refer to him in this way (as, I would argue, is the case with Fernando vs Ferdinand, but not William the C, who is uniformly referred to as William in English sources). Otherwise, the link in the language section to the wiki.fr equivalent article suffices. Agricolae (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

"Count Herbert II of Maine died in 1062, and William, who had betrothed his eldest son Robert to Herbert's sister Margaret, claimed the county through his son. Local nobles resisted the claim, but William invaded and by 1064 had secured control of the area."

What this line fails to mention is that the local nobles invited Count Walter of the Vexim to become Count of Maine due to his wife being the daughter of an earlier Count, Herbert I of Maine. He and his wife were to die under suspicious circumstances in Norman captivity.

The significance of this is that he was the nephew of Edward the Confessor thru his full sister Goda. The fact that William is directly or indirectly responsible for the death of Edward's last surviving nephew, a grandson of Ethelraed Unraed, is something which historians for some reason studiously ignore. That it throws a light on the attitude of Edward towards the Norman duke in the last years of his life is beyond doubt and probably explains why Edward is said to have on his deathbed nominated Harold Godwinsson to succeed him.

Edward was not quite the saintly figure that he was painted. He had a temper and would nurse grudges for slights done to his family. His falling out with Earl Godwin in the 1050's was sparked by the anger he felt towards the Earl for his part in the blinding and death of his brother Alfred in the reign of Cnut's son Harold Harefoot.

He also favoured Walter's brother, Ralph, by making him Earl of Hereford.

That the captivity of Count Walter occurred at the time that Norman chroniclers place Harold Godwinnson's supposed visit to Normandy should place a whole new light on the event.

Was Harold sent to negotiate Walter's release?

Or to rebuke William for the way he treat a relative of the king who supposedly had promised him his throne? 81.108.107.130 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When requesting an edit to a semi-protected page you need to be absolutely explicit - you need to provide the precise change of language you would like to be made. Where is the change to be made, what existing sentence(s) is to be altered (this you have done) and how (this you haven't), what specific text (with citations) is to be inserted. Without specific language, no specific change can be made. If you just have a general impression that the page isn't covering something properly, then you are better off simply opening a discussion on the Talk page, just as would be done for a non-semi-protected page and generate consensus for your perspective.

That being said, you make a comment that is troubling here. ". . . something historians for some reason ignore." The problem with this is that Wikipedia is not a venue for expressing one's own unique perspective, for correcting a deficit in existing historical accounts. We take our lead when covering historical subjects from what modern scholars write about them. Wikipedia editors are explicitly barred from presenting novel perspectives, from inserting material that they think is interesting but recent histories doe not cover, from trying to right historical wrongs or change the way historians have traditionally presented their subjects. For us to make a point, to present a perspective, some historian needs to have already made that point, to have presented that perspective, or else it would represent a violation of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:V or other policies. Agricolae (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Authority File

Currently the VIAF authority file link points to: https://viaf.org/viaf/281723490/ which seems strangely empty, only showing a single name from the vatican. Looking at the history of that VIAF ID, it looks like everthing has been moved to: https://viaf.org/viaf/88049597/ I tried to be bold and update it, but clearly I do not understand the way the authority control template works! Josephholsten (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It has to be changed at wikidata, which I've done. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)