Talk:Mercia

message: I whacked the "Mercland" because there is zero evidence for it, and I just finished The Earliest English Kings which would have mentioned it if the name was real. So let's see the authority here. Stan 22:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting explanation, but still doesn't answer my question about authorities. My unabridged OED has a third of a column about "Mercia" and "Mercian", but "Mercland" is nowhere to be seen. If the term is not of your own invention, there must be somebody else who uses it also. Google only shows "Mercland" as a surname and for auto dealerships, but it's certainly possible that there are print authorities without web pages. We only need one. Stan 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that because Mercia was "out of the loop" on written materials later than other parts of England, that "Mercland" had gone out of use before anything was written down in the vernacular. The OED sez "Mercia" is a latinization of Ole English "Mierce", so perhaps "land" was simply never added to the name. I don't have a textbook or dictionary of Old English at home, but will visit university library in a couple weeks, can look up then. Stan 00:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: But if it's not a real name, then it shouldn't be there. Otherwise you leave the door open to nutcases who say their study of Gnostic writings make it clear that it was really called "Oogabooga", and then the edit warring never stops. We have to have an authoritative source that we can cite by name. (Yes, not everything in WP has that level of support, but that's a bug, not a feature.) Stan 04:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No decrees needed! - just a use in print. That's how the OED works after all; they have a lot of really weird words, but each definition includes one or more quotes showing that it was really used by people; for modern words the quote may very well be something as minor as a campus newspaper, but it's still something verifiable. "Mierce" is cool with me, although I'd still like to investigate the "Mercland" possibility. Stan 07:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Interesting speculation.  Sadly, Wikipedia does not treat speculation as fact... Morwen 18:14, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Morwen, do you have access to any of the EPNS references I mentioned above? I figure that would have the authoritative answer to this question, & settle this matter.
And the issue of spelling Mercia can be overprecise: I've seen diplomatic texts that spell Mercia "Myrce", "Mierce" & "Mearce". Obviously the original writer was trying to capture the quality of the first vowel, which probably varied depending on how he heard it spoken, & his habits of spelling. Spelling was more of an art than a science before the introduction of the printing press.
BTW, the Mercian charters printed in A Second Anglo-Saxon Reader (2nd ed.) call kings Offa & Ethelbald rex merciorum -- "king of the Mercias". So if we want to add contemporary variants on Mercia to this article, we should add all of them; it will be quite a chore to collect them, unless someone can find a paper that has done so. -- llywrch 23:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercland

message: Someone added a "see also" link from this article to J. R. R. Tolkien. A glance at that article fails to show what relevance Mercia has to this writer. (Yes, Tolkien was an expert on Old English -- & how does that relate to Mercia?) Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove that link. -- llywrch 01:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's no secret Tolkien based the language/names of Rohan on Old English, but I'd like to see some reference to the Mercian dialect. I've never heard of the "Mercian dialect" anyway. --Jquarry 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolkien & Mercia? 

message: I think this article would benefit from a map.  That is, I'm confused as to the exact location of Mercia and would like to see a map.  Does anyone know where to find one?Marksman45 09:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added one. Thanks for bringing it up. Everyking 09:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks!  That helps me out a lot.  Marksman45 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map? 

message: Which city is the capital of Mercia?  In school I was told it was Repton in Derbyshire, but this page says it was Tamworth.  I 'googled' 'Capital of Mercia' and got entries for both Repton and Tamworth.  Where they both capitals? Jsp3970 16:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked around and the information seems to claim that Repton was the first capital, and it was later moved to Tamworth. Jsp3970 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A capital as such did indeed not exist. The main royal residence is thought to have been Tamworth. It has been argued by Nicholas Brooks that the Mercian royal line originated as leaders of the Tomsæte, i. e., the dwellers at the river Tame. Ekki01 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital of Mercia

message: Surely Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, Warwickshire, West Midlands and Staffordshire need to be mentioned in the opening paragrapg as where it cover? http://whitedragon.org.uk/whereism.htm Robert C Prenic 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that you cite is an unreliable one, I'm afraid. At least half of the area you describe was not part of the original kingdom, and only became so through later conquests. TharkunColl 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. In the Wikipedia article it clearly states that Merica  "was one of the kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, centred on the valley of the River Trent and its tributaries in what is now the Midlands of England. Mercia's neighbours included..."  I do apologise as I read this wrong and if you look at the Midlands entry, it covers Shropshire for example. The entry is perfectly fine, it was me reading it wrong. And, I also apologise for giving this source, I thought they may know as White Dragon is based on Mercia. Robert C Prenic 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Mercia?

message: ::RFC tag removed. Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was built by hand using a Demis base image and using information taken primarily from the map on p. 209 of Peter Hunter Blair's "Roman Britain and Early England", slightly modified as Blair's map represents the state of affairs in the late seventh century. Mike Christie (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the first one with borders better, it does provide more information. As for the reliability, it seems ok, just cite it to the original cartographer in the caption. -Icewedge (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Map for miscellaneous medieval England articles 

message: The RFC did not change the consensus on the use of the map.  To summarize, here are the editors supporting one or other map:
*No borders: Mike Christie, RepublicanJacobite, Deacon of Pndapetzim, Llywrch, DDStretch, Angusmclellan, and Nesbit.
*Borders: Yorkshirian, TharkunColl, Icewedge.
I will revert to the map with no borders shortly.
A user, Sakurambo, recently did a revised svg version of the map without borders.  It can be seen at :Image:British kingdoms c 800.svg.  I plan to use that version as SVG files resize better, and it looks a little neater.  Please let me know if there are any reasons to prefer the gif file. Mike Christie (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of RFC and discussion 

message: Is there any chance of tweaking the introduction so that it makes Mercia's timeline more apparent? I had to scroll through the article before I could find out which millenium Mercia existed in, let alone which year. For people who are unaccquainted with the history of medieval Britain, the intro is a bit obfuscatory.
ManicParroT (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: This article contains stuff not directly related to the kingdom, such as more recent history and dialects etc. Can someone undo it please? ðarkuncoll 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this page is meant to be about the Kingdom of Mercia. Mercia is still a name used today and asuch there needs to be a seperation of the Kingdom and the modern meaning. The Quill (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said this page was supposed to be about the Kingdom of Mercia? ðarkuncoll 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If I want to find an article on Mercia, I'll search for 'Mercia'.  I won't make any hair-splitting distinctions and will be much better informed if I can find the historical and contemporary usages in the same place.  Why 'Kingdom of Mercia', any more than 'Kingdom of England'?  Not all post-kingdom history is modern either: think of Leofric and Aelfgar.  David Robins (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we revert it? Do we need an admin to do it? ðarkuncoll 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it for you. I suggest you review the moving editor's other page moves (e.g., Wessex, and so on), because it looks like all the heptarchy kingdoms and related areas have also been moved by The Quill.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I've also left a suitable message on The Quill's talk page asking for the other page moves to be reverted unless and until agreement to their  moves are obtained on the appropriate talk pages, rather than moving them and then singlehandedly attempting to state what the articles ought to be about.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The meaning of Mercia comes from the english word merchant. In spanish the word mercado means market. The land of the Mark or market. This border country was the marketplace for the surrounding areas. a map of economic activity would be useful here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenGordonPaterson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the move?

message: This section has been fleshed out and edited to a disproportionate length. It needs to be trimmed down again and cited details moved to main articles if they are not duplicated. Metabaronic (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved 2 paragraphs from the Supremacy section into a new one covering Mercian religion.Metabaronic (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penda and the Mercian Supremacy/Mercian religion 

message: I can't believe someone actually cited a fictional appendix to a fictional book to make an assertion of fact.
Tolkien did not translate some actual Rohirric language into Mercian. He wrote that language as Mercian ab initio, and came up with a fictionalized rationalization for it as he explained in the Appendices. Those Appendices do NOT purport to be factual. They're part of the literary conceit of Tolkien as translator of the Red Book of Westmarch rather than the author who concocted the thing from whole cloth.
If you want the facts, look at Letters. As I do not have my copy to hand at the moment I have left the citation as it was, but please let's not pretend in an encyclopedia that fiction is really history. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolkien and "translation" 

message: I have removed the 'Mercian National Party' and 'Mercian Socialist Party' as I don't think they deserve a mention unless they can be proved to be actual 'groups', i.e. consisting of more than one person between them.  Cdh1984 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Mercian groups 

message: The following statement in the article is incorrect:
"The Arden family claim descent from Leofric, Earl of Mercia and as such are one of the few families in England that claim Anglo-Saxon royalty among their ancestors."
- Good grief! A great many families can claim descent from Anglo-Saxon royalty, and most certainly the present Royal family, and quite rightly so! Perhaps the person who made this statement meant something else - Mercian Royalty perhaps, though I am uncertain as to whether Earl Leofric could genuinely be described as royalty in any event. Since the statement is so patently false in it's current form, I am removing the second half of this sentence following the word 'Mercia'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpretty010 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent from Anglo-Saxon Royalty

message: There is an interesting discussion above about the correct pronunciation of Mercia, and I don't dispute that now it is generally pronounced MERS-ia. But given that the derivation of the word is clearly related to the Welsh Marches, and that the letters "er" are frequently pronounced "ar" in English placenames (Derby, Hertford, Berkshire), is it not likely that it was originally pronounced MARCH-ia? Since the Angles spoke a Germanic language, the German cognate Mark (as in Mark Brandenburg, originally in the "Polish Marches") is also relevant. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an interesting discussion above, and it seems to a non-expert like me that they got it about right in the end. Surely the explananation for the apparently anomalous Derby/Hertford spellings lies in the Great Vowel Shift of the 14th century, at the other end of the Middle Ages, and relates to changes in Middle English, not Anglo-Saxon. The spelling reflects the older pronunciation, which was long retained in regional dialects and US English and is still sometimes used - as in West Derby, Liverpool, which is derived from Lord Derby, the original landowner, but not pronounced as with the traditional county town of Derbyshire. In other words, er never was pronounced like ar, but the spellings got suspended in the old orthography when the pronunciation evolved: the main reason why so many English words appear illogical in spelling is that they are etymological. Sjwells53 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: This article has "It also occurs as a female given name.[citation needed]"
What citation do you need?  I know two women named Mercia. (Pronounced MER-see-uh) It's an unusual name but it does exist. 
Also I found this - http://www.name-statistics.org/za/prenume.php?prenume=Mercia showing app. 14,000 women with the name in SA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.89.0 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given name (citation needed) 

message: Each of the last several Queens of Mercia was a daughter of the previous Queen: Eadburh, Ealhswith, Aethelflaed and Aelfwynn. The husbands of the first three were "King" of Mercia jure uxoris (by right of the wife). Several of the earlier ninth century Kings of Mercia were also not sons of a King in the preceding generation, though a few married either a daughter or later female descendant of one. Is there any secondary source that discusses this? Zoetropo (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no matrilineal descent. Eadburh was daughter of Offa of Mercia and queen of Wessex. Ealhswith and Æthelflæd were daughters of kings of Wessex. These were thus diplomatic marriages. Ælfwynn was daughter of Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, but she was an only child - and was deposed by Edward the Elder within months. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Different Eadburh: yours flourished 789-802 and was depicted by Asser as a poisoner who ended her days penniless in Pavia, but I'm writing about the mother of Ealhswith (died 5 Dec 902) named Eadburh, who was the wife of the Mercian nobleman Æthelred Mucil, Ealdorman of the Gaini.  This Eadburh was a member of the Mercian royal family, so a branch of the Mercian royal line continued through her.  But speaking of Offa, coins were issued in the name of his wife Cynethryth, so although we know nothing of her parents, she must have been important in her own right.  Æthelflæd was called "Lady" rather than "Queen" of the Mercians, precisely because of (your) Queen Eadburh's extremely unsavoury reputation.  Although the Wikipedia article on him asserts that Æthelred Mucil "ruled" Mercia "shortly after the death of its last king, Ceolwulf II in 879", it's clear that he had no hereditary entitlement to rule other than through his wife Eadburh II (otherwise their marriage would have been incestuous). Zoetropo (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, an 11th century genealogy of the family of Count Eudon of Brittany (Odo, Count of Penthièvre), constructed by his rival the Count of Anjou, claimed that his (significantly younger) wife Orguen ("Agnes") of Kernev was a maternal grand-daughter of Melisende of Maine, sister of Count Hugh III of Maine (who, the historian Keats-Rohan thinks, married a sister of Duke Geoffrey I of Brittany, Eudon's father). A genealogy (with at least one doubtful descent) for Count Hugh III provides him and his sister with a long matrilineal descent from Queens of Mercia, so, for what it's worth, someone thought this important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoetropo (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercian Monarchy Matrilineal in the Ninth Century? 

message: The "Pound" in it's various forms does indeed go back to Roman times, but the way it was stated so casually in the infobox, it gave the impression that the "Pound Sterling" (as currently defined) was the official currency of Mercia.  That's the silly part.  To remedy the silly part, the subject needs to be removed from the infobox and explained in real words in the text as to what was intended by the words in the infobox.  I imagine it would be something probably along the lines of "The (then-version of the Pound) was one form of money used at the time in the kingdom of Mercia, other money also used was X".  Of course, that entry would be subject to notability requirements as well (which it would propably have considering the existing level of detail in the article).  Most importantly too, it would require a reliable reference.
The entry in the infobox conveyed a meaning probably not intended and also lacked a solid ref supporting either meaning (the one intended or the silly one expressed).  That's why I removed it.  According to WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.".  That is, it may not be reinstated (in it's previous form) without a reliable ref which actually mentions Mercia and actually supports the actual meaning expressed in the actual words in the text.  100.0.124.147 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Stenton, and Google pound sterling and Offa, for literally hundreds of references. Don't remove unless you get a consensus to do so. TharkunColl (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is correct that the pound was the currency. The BBC source cited says "pounds and shillings were merely useful units of account." Stenton p. 223 says "From the reign of Offa to that of Henry III the English currency was based on a silver penny..." The article on coinage in the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says "The gold shilling was superseded c.675 by the silver penny which was to remain the principal denomination until the mid-fourteenth century. The concept of an offical currency in this period is probably anachronistic, but it certainly was not the pound. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Dudley, a unit of account is a currency. That's the whole point of it. TharkunColl (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not what's communicated by the actual text in dispute.  If you mean to say that, then say that in a way that is clear, not by way of the ambiguous disputed text.  100.0.124.147 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Anonymous IP, I've added another reference. How many do you want? TharkunColl (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You know darned well it's not about me or "what I want", don't play stupid head games.  It's about WP:verifiability and unambiguous wording.  100.0.124.147 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  TharkunColl The Cambridge Online Dictionary at  defines currency as "the money that is used in a particular country at a particular time". In the later Anglo-Saxon period that would the silver penny (contrary to my previous comment that currency in this period is anachronistic). Also the first reference says pounds and shillings, not pounds only, and the second is a commercial site which is not WP:RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pound Sterling" the official currency of Mercia? 

message: Several organisations mentioned in this article appear to be small groups that are self-referenced. I removed two last night intending to go back today to look at the others, but I was reverted twice by the editor who added them in the first place.. I think all of these are basically promotional and don't belong. I don't oppose putting any with articles into See also however. Full disclosure of my perspective - any that fail WP:ORG should go to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed the latest edit, which made some changes and added a source for the purpose of Sovereign Mercia, but I think makes my point as the books only mention is this name states that "There is also a website dedicated to the creation of a sovereign state of Mercia (Sovereign Mercia website)." The existence of a website doesn't warrant its mention here. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of organisations that fail [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: I understand that the Mercian saltire is an anachronism but if we are going to use it we should at least make sure it is the right colour.  See http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/event/st-albans-day/ and https://britishcountyflags.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/insert-image-9-tam-castle-2.jpg?w=640  I would change it but I don't know how to edit .svg files Cdh1984 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Alban%27s_cross_(corrected_blue).svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Mercie_(corrected_blue).png for darker shade of blue as seen here http://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/Talks-held-Tamworth-joining-massive-Greater/story-26628582-detail/story.html and http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/8939/Britain_As_It_Was_Devided_in_the_tyme_of_the_EnglisheSaxons_especially/Speed.html Cdh1984 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been discussing the is with another user here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TharkunColl#St._Albans_Cross who has reverted my edits.  I would be interested in having some input from other users.  Thanks.  Cdh1984 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference seems minimal to me, so I'm not sure why any change is needed, and the explanation given here seems good to me; computer displays vary, as do their settings; and I wonder if you've seen this, I think it's fascinating! And maybe relevant... Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the input. Part of the reason that the difference is minimal is that I have tried to establish a compromise. I have also seen the version of the flag flying above Tamworth castle. Whilst TharkunColl is right that it is not as dark as the Flag Institute version it is certainly much closer to medium blue than the version used on wikipedia, which I perceive as a jarringly different shade. I understand, however, that we all see colours differently, especially online. I also think these different definitions of azure may be playing a part in the confusion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_(color) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_(heraldry). But, anyway, I have said my piece. Cdh1984 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags again 

message: "The English pound originated in the 760s in the Kingdom of Mercia when King Offa introduced the silver penny into the coinage of the time.[21]"
This link is one to a firm offering loans at 140%. It should probably be removed!
Dantes Warden (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The English Pound 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mercia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126130741/http://full-time.thefa.com/Index.do?divisionseason=448491932 to http://full-time.thefa.com/Index.do?league=287177213
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 'In 1908 Sir Oliver Lodge, Principal of Birmingham University, wrote to his counterpart at Bristol'.  Who was that counterpart? 31.52.255.62 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who he? 

message: What is the justification for having that section in this article?  I don't doubt that it's accurate, but why have it in this article about Mercia, when there is no governmental recognition of Mercia as an administrative area now?  We have articles on the English Midlands, West Midlands, East Midlands, etc. - the detailed administrative arrangements should be (and are) within those articles, not this one.  I propose that the entire "Regional government" section should be removed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I cannot see how that section is relevant to this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to make it as concise as possible, but have no particular objection to the proposal. TharkunColl (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

text: OK - I've removed it.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional government

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved   (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *That argument could also be valid, yet having three words in the article’s title is not necessarily against WP:CONCISE; it’s longer than a single word obviously, but it’s not unreasonably long either. And if there’s an established format why not just follow it? If we create an exception here, then almost all of the pages on :Category:Former kingdoms will need to be examined as well. Keivan.fTalk 07:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well also per Wikipedia:Disambiguation we only disambiguate a title when necessary, and not when there is a primary topic, like in these cases. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Then per Wikipedia:Disambiguation at least the page on Wessex needs to be moved, because as Vpab15 said the term is in use today and refers to an actual area in England. Keivan.fTalk 01:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Only if the kingdom is not the primary topic for "Wessex". Looking over the disambig page, the kingdom certainly seems to be the primary topic for "Wessex" to me. Are you arguing that the kingdom is not the primary topic? If so, then you should also be proposing that Wessex (disambiguation) be moved to Wessex. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

text: * I guess it is not unnecessary if the terms are still in use today, and as another user mentioned it seems that they are being used. The articles themselves happen to have info on the words’ modern usage, and Wessex still refers to an area in England, which at this point is not a kingdom! Keivan.fTalk 01:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * If there were different articles the primary topic would have to be assessed, but that isn't the case right now. CMD (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * That is definitely the case right now. This is very clear for Wessex. There is Wessex culture, referring to the Bronze age and not to the Saxon kingdom. Also, Thomas Hardy's Wessex, which is probably the primary topic in literature. There are other articles in Wessex (disambiguation). The fact that there is no separate article to refer to the region, like in East Anglia doesn't mean the term is not used today, as mentioned in Wessex#Cultural_and_political_identity_in_modern_times. Vpab15 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * If you feel another topic in Wessex (disambiguation) is the primary topic for "Wessex", that is a different argument (the proposed move is based on consistency and thus would presumably leave the redirects in place). As you note there is no article for a modern region to be considered, and there is only a single source in the section you mention. CMD (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 February 2021 

message: "was one of the three notable Anglic kingdoms " kinda makes you want to know the others. The number of kingdoms was quite fluid at this time, as the Heptarchy article describes.
I think "was one of the three notable Anglic kingdoms, along with East Anglia and XXX " would be superior. Dhalamh (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: East Anglia and Northumbria. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the two other Anglic kingdoms?