Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Battle of TamworthEdit

I have nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tamworth. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Coinage in Anglo-Saxon EnglandEdit

The Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England article is very short and in dire need of expanions Faust.TSFL (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066) covers the same ground. It was written by an expert who unfortunately did not provide inline references. I think it would be better to change Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England to a redirect to that article. Johnbod I see that you have edited the article. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Some people only want a short article! I'm loath to in effect replace referenced material with unreferenced. Some could be merged, eg the leads. Or we could do nothing, except add more links across to the pennies. Isn't there sceatta etc too. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
These are fair points. The problem is that we have the article on the penny, which was written by one of the leading experts, Rory Naismith, with a title which few people will search on, and a stub article which most people will find and will probably not click the link to the first rate article. I am not sure what the solution is. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead of penny is certainly much too short, and one could make much of Coinage into an expanded lead there. I take it the articles don't actually disagree on anything much. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Meonwara and WihtwaraEdit

This discussion is copied from Talk:Anglo-Saxons, it is probably more appropriate here.Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC) :

Wilfridselsey and I have been trying to advise Ovid99, a new editor who has been editing numerous articles relating to the Anglo Saxons. Would any pagewatchers be able to take a look at Meonwara (since 6 May 2021‎) and Wihtwara (since 20 April 2022) and advise them further? TSventon (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that Ovid99 has an interest in the Jutes. There was an IP editor, that I think was probably Ovid99, as they were adding similar content to the Jutes article plus towns and villages that would have been part of Jutish territory. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Wilfridselsey, my problem is that Ovid99 is adding a lot of material and a lot of what they are adding is Wikipedia:Original research, loosely based on older sources. I have tried to explain that to them on their talk page, without much success. For example the history section of Meonwara begins "The Meonwara appear to have been part of the defence of the Sub-Roman polity of Cair Guinntguic",[1], added here The source wikisource:la:Historia Brittonum just lists Cair Guinntguic as one of the cities of Britain, it doesn't say that the Meonwara were part of its defences. Also, the reliability of Historia Brittonum is debatable. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nennius (attrib.). Theodor Mommsen (ed.). Historia Brittonum, VI. Composed after AD 830. (in Latin) Hosted at Latin Wikisource.
TSventon thank you for your remarks. Ovid99 is very enthusiastic, but as we know there are few absolutes in Anglo Saxon studies. More of 'if,possibly, maybe' etc is the usual favoured vocabulary rather than absolutes. As you say they seem to have used some old texts and embellished these with OR removing some newer solid citations for stuff that has been binned years ago, or is from flaky sources. It is then trumpeted as the absolute truth. I think that Ovid99 is also 2603:6010:de3d:3ff6:8c5e:f8c6:adac:6194. If you check their contribution list, their edits are subject to being reverted a lot. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A couple of comments: (1) this discussion should really be taking place at the relevant article talk pages or maybe the WikiProject, not here. (2) I had a quick look at Meonwara and don’t understand why you guys aren’t just reverting him per WP:BRD. What’s been done is clearly a mixture of OR/SYNTH, misuse of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OLDSOURCES. For example, the etymology section is egregious. WP:OR etymologies cited to Wiktionary translations of claimed root words in Greek, plus Bede (to the extent that it creates garbled nonsense by directly quoting a latin genitive plural as a proper noun “the Anglorum”)! DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Wilfridselsey and DeCausa Thank you for your comments. The 2603:6010:DE3D:3FF6:* IP range and then Ovid99 have made about a thousand edits across 49 articles and as far as I can tell the content added is largely original research. (1) I have been discussing the issue of original research on Ovid99's talk page and didn't see any point in posting to largely unwatched talk pages for the articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Meonwara is a recent example, rather than a particularly bad one. I came here because I know there are several well informed page watchers. (2) I haven't been reverting Ovid99's content, partly because there is a lot of it and partly to avoid an edit war. TSventon (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about what Wikiproject this should be on and where it shouldn't be.
Anyway, ANI may be the only solution. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I am afraid that I am also thinking ANI may be necessary. I initially posted at Talk:Anglo-Saxons because it seemed to be more active, but am happy to get further input from a WikiProject. TSventon (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ovid99 and Ovid99 has not edited since 16 June.

Anglo-ScandinavianEdit

Hello lovely people. I've noticed that the Anglo-Scandinavian page was a stub as of 2 days ago, which is not ideal given its incredible importance to the topic. I whacked in a few sentences but have been very busy so haven't had time to do much with it yet - if anyone's got some free time do please add anything Faust.TSFL (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not an article I have come across before. I do not understand why the title is italicized, which looks wrong to me. Dudley Miles (talk)
Dudley Miles for what it's worth, the title was italicised here here based on MOS:WORDSASWORDS and presumably WP:ITALICTITLE. TSventon (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. The justification makes no sense. The article is about a culture, not words as words. I will delete the italicization. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, I think the justification made sense in 2018, but not with the recent additions. TSventon (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Style GuideEdit

The wikiproject page states that this project 'does not, as of now, have its own style guide'. Given particularly the complexities of OE names and standardisation (see my comments on the Ewalds page, for example), should this be a thing we should be thinking about?Faust.TSFL (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)