Contents

Talk:Ælfthryth (wife of Edgar)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑importance This article 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.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. English Royalty Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vandalism?[edit]

I'm myopic, it's true, but this does not seem to be reverting vandalism, which is what "rvv" is usually understood as. I don't see a reason to revert at all. Am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an anonymous IP that may have been a vandal itself. I saw some issues in the article that I fixed. How come she is referred to as Ælfthryth throughout the article even though the title is Efrida? Either she should be referred to as Elfrida throughout the article (except for the first sentence that shows alternate names) or the article's title should be changed to Ælfthryth. --PiMaster3 ^talk 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's on my list of Anglo-Saxon-people-whose-articles-have-to-be-renamed. I'd have to rename the other Ælfthryths, and move ÆlfthrythtoÆlfthryth (disambiguation), but I haven't figured out exactly what to call them. Presumably this one could be Ælfthryth, Queen of England and Aelfthryth could be Ælfthryth, Countess of Boulogne [oops]] Ælfthryth, Countess of Flanders. There's also Ælfthryth, Queen of Mercia, Mrs Cenwulf of Mercia, about whom I could manage a couple of paragraphs, probably. What might be called Ælfthryth, putative daughter of Offa of Mercia would be better to stay at Alfrida. I don't think there are any other Ælfthryths. Elfrida and Aelfthryth would redirect to the disambiguation page and Alfrida should have an {{otherpeople2}} hatnote on it. Hmm, looks like I have a plan! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: not moved. While there is a general preference on Wikipedia for parentheses for disambiguation, there does not appear to be consensus here for a change. (non-admin closure) Bradv 22:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar → Aelfthryth (wife of Edgar) – Or Ælfthryth (wife of Edgar). "Wife of Edgar" is not a royal title, is it? If not, should be parenthesized. However, if "wife of Edgar" is not a suitable disambiguator, how about "Ælfthryth, Queen of England", "Aelfthryth, Queen of England" or something else? George Ho (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I do not see why the article name implies that "wife of Edgar" is a title. A comma is used in countless article titles as part of disambiguation, for example Ælfflæd, wife of Edward the Elder, Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, and many towns distinguished by a comma and then the county, for example March, Cambridgeshire. The alternative of Ælfthryth, Queen of England raises the disputed question as to whether it should be Ælfthryth, Queen of the English at that date. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other titles of wives are disambiguated by parentheses, Dudley, like Lady Wu (wife of Sun Jian), which I changed from "Lady Wu (Sun Jian's wife)". Why must comma disambiguation be treated as an alternative to parenthetical disambiguation? --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say when I discovered WP:TSC hours after initiating the RM: when『Æ』is not on our English-language common keyboards, let's not use it. George Ho (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. ODNB has *Ælfthryth (d. 999x1001), queen of England, consort of King Edgar*. Move to Ælfthryth (d. 999x1001) if moving it anywhere. Foolish consistency might produce Ælfflæd (fl. early 10th century)(?), Ælfgifu (fl. 956–966), et cetera. WP:TSC doesn't appear to be relevant, other than suggesting that yet more redirects need created.Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, the titles that you are proposing are less convenient to readers. I haven't seen you commented on the "wife of" and "Queen of". George Ho (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Previous such nominations {Theodora, wife of Romanos I → Theodora (wife of Romanos I); Agatha, wife of Samuel of Bulgaria → Agatha (wife of Samuel of Bulgaria)orMaria, wife of Ivan Vladislav → Maria (wife of Ivan Vladislav)} have engendered no opposition and it is difficult to understand the reason why this one should be any different. The wording remains the same as before, thus making this nomination a purely technical neutral request, including the practical revision Æ → Ae. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiating by a comma is used in thousands of article titles without any controversy or problem, and changing it in this case is not a mere technical neutral request. The use of Æ is also common and has never caused a problem. It has been used on several FAs and TFAs, such as Æthelstan and Æthelwulf, and no one suggested a change to Ae. In books, there has been a move to greater use of Æ, presumably because advances in printing technology have made it easier to use the more accurate symbol. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) We have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know the obvious key difference between disambiguation by comma and disambiguation by parenthetical qualifier — the comma is part of the title — the qualifier is not and, therefore, disappears in piping. If the main title header is Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar, then her reference in links is the full form, which is taken to be a royal title, such as Edward, King of Portugal. However, if the main header has a qualifier, Ælfthryth (wife of Edgar), then the basic header is simply "Ælfthryth", with the link piped, Ælfthryth (wife of Edgar)|Ælfthryth, thus redirecting her name to the article titled, Ælfthryth (wife of Edgar).

2) Differentiating by a comma is, indeed, used in thousands of article titles without any controversy or problem, enabling us to distinguish between, for example, Leo III, King of Armenia and Leo IV, King of Armenia. If the main headers, however, were structured as Leo III (King of Armenia) and Leo IV (King of Armenia), then the actual article titles, Leo III and Leo IV would have unavoidable need for piped qualifiers, differentiating them from the Leo III and Leo IV disambiguation pages.

3) Thus, if it is claimed that Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar is, indeed, a noble or royal title analogous to Leo III, King of Armenia, then a comma is appropriate. If not, then a qualifier is needed. The two are mutually exclusive.

4) As far as『Æ』is concerned, we are not enhancing anyone's Wikipedia experience by insisting on the use of archaic symbols which do not appear on my large multi-purpose keyboard and, I suspect, on anyone else's keyboard. Even if "advances in printing technology have made it easier to use the more accurate symbol", we should not make users jump through hoops to reach the desired article. Main title headers in English Wikipedia should be in modern English, not Middle English. Redirects using medieval formulation in conjunction with article content will attend to the scholarly details. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinctions you are making go against Wikipedia guidance. 1. According to your logic, St Ives, Cambridgeshire should be St Ives (Cambridgeshire). Cambridgeshire is not a title. Wikipedia:Article titles states that parenthetical disambiguation should be used when no other disambiguation solution leads to an optimal title, such as Mercury (element). Thus, brackets are to be used when no other solution produces a suitable title, not as a first choice where differentiation is not by title. 2. The guidance also states that non-anglicized spellings should be used where they predominate in reliable English language sources, such as Søren Kierkegaard. The same applies to Ælthryth. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place names have their own conventions which share similarities with human naming conventions. A cross-referencing of this nomination appears at a neighboring RM discussion, Talk:Ablekuma Central (Ghana parliament constituency)#Requested move 13 December 2016, where the Ælfthryth discussion has been mentioned. Participants here may be interested in expanding the topic by adding their views there. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Silly affection for unnatural parentheses. This sort of descriptive comma disambiguation is fine. The comma does not imply a royal title, even if royal titles are given after a comma. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although I supported another of the proposer's Æ → Ae moves, this one is an established, historical proper name MOS:LIGATURE. I personally tend to favour parenthetical disambiguation, but I see nothing wrong with this. Reidgreg (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.