Talk:Battle of Edington

message: The Description of this Battle is very poorly done, and to confusing to follow. Other battles and campaigning need not be mentioned when talking about the Battle of Eddington itself.  You digress way off topic and mention things that should be talked about in "Events before the Battle"
:Yes, I've created an "Events before the Battle" section. Dzw49 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Description 

message: This edit  constitutes almost the entire article and has references to publications that the editor didn't even bother to add.  I'm guessing it's copied from somewhere else.  Without the references and source of this huge edit, I'm afraid it should be removed. --Ronz 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_September_5/Articles --Ronz 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I am not convinced enough that it is a copyvio. Anons also can greatly expand an article. Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a copyvio. I wrote this as a research paper for school and decided it would be useful here, so I added a (suitably trimmed and edited) version. I don't know why I didn't add the works cited list then; I've been meaning to add them since I noticed the omission, perhaps a month or two later, but just somehow never got around to it until now. Golwengaud (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :There are new arguments - reason to doubt that the battle of Edington was in Wiltshire, but happened in the village of Eddington - on the north :side of the Polden Hills and the Sedgemoor - in Somerset. The hills had a Roman road along them, which linked the town of Ilchester to the :port of Combwich on the river Parrett. In the same year (a few months before in 878), party of Vikings led by Ubbe Ragnarsson, brother of :Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan Ragnarsson, landed on the coast at Combwich with 23 ships and twelve hundred men. They were defeated whilst besieging :the fort of "Cynwit" (Battle of Cannington). They would have retreated to the river, and the Roman fort which stood at the only defensive mound :allong the river, at Bridgwater. Alfred was just 6 miles south at Athelney. Guthrum would have followed Alfred South, using the rivers and the :Bristol Channel. The fortress mentioned after the battle may have been Bridgwater, where the survivors of the battle of Cannington may have :been recovering. Thus not distant Chippenham. Further arguments to support this lie in the fact that a defeated Guthrum was baptised at Aller :(Enmore church, as claimed, did not exist at this time) which is just 4 miles (South) away from Eddington (Somerset) and a peace treaty was signed :at Wedmore - 3 miles North of the village.
I do believe a reference would be in order here (see WP:NOR). SwordSmurf (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative battle site 

message: I agree that Edington is the most likely site for the Battle of Ethandun, but I find the name and contents of this article quite wrong, indeed, frankly misleading. Our only source for the battle is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which calls it the "Battle of Ethandun". Many, like me, think the site was probably at Edington in Wiltshire, but the movement which changes the name to the "Battle of Edington" is not a scholarly one, and it won't do to state this location as a fact. We should surely move this article to the title "Battle of Ethandun" and then put the points of view about the three most likely sites. Any comments? Dzw49 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one commented, I have now moved this to Battle of Ethandun. Dzw49 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to Battle of Ethandun

message: *Support. Philip Baird Shearer supports as nominator. Added by SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: The geographic coordinates currently shown for the battle (51° 26′ 25″ N, 2° 14′ 32″ W) indicate a place in the fields quite near Chippenham but rather a long way from Edington. If it is worthwhile having geographic coordinates at all for a battle of which the site is controversial, perhaps they should point to Bratton Camp (51° 15′ 49.95″ N, 2° 8′ 34.49″ W) near Edington, where, according to the apparently prevalent view, the battle took place.
Frans Fowler (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates wrong? 

message: The Battle of Edington article calls it the Battle of Edington; the King Alfred's Tower article calls it the Battle of Ethandun (User Dzw49 having changed Edington to Ethandun in the King Alfred's Tower article in February, 2009). On the Talk page for King Alfred's Tower I'm suggesting the reference(s) there be changed back to Edington and I'm mentioning it on the Battle of Edington Talk page because there has been much discussion about Edington v Ethandun
Frans Fowler (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edington/Ethandun Consistency 

message: Substituted at 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I am puzzled by the reference to the battle being featured in Bernard Cornwell's novel the lastThe Last Kingdom, as that novel ends two years prior to the battle taking place. While the battle does feature significantly in the The Saxon Stories series, it is the second novel in the series The Pale Horseman that covers the events leading up to and during the battle and which sees the series' hero and narrator Uhtred of Bebbanburg participate in the battle with his allies. The battle is an important event in the series, not least as two key characters die in it. I suspect some of the confusion is that the TV adaptation of the novels is also called The Last Kingdom.Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles include lists of references in popular fiction, but not high quality ones such as Henry II of England, which is an FA. This has a discussion of cultural depictions with reliable sources, not in list form, and a link to a separate article, Cultural depictions of Henry II of England, for those interested. This model could apply to the Edington article. The Chesterton ref and maybe the Cornwell one are probably discussed in reliable sources which could be cited, and the other books could be hived off to a new article, Cultural depictions of the Battle of Edington. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Either this sort of material is encyclopedic or it isn't.  Some reasonable quality articles do include a "popular culture" section e.g. Henry III of England.  Whether this material is hived off is a separate issue, mainly determined by the length of the articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry III has a popular culture section as text (not a list) with reliable references explaining why the depictions are significant, like Henry II but with a slightly different title, and as I suggested for this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Whether some articles have lists is not relevant. Many articles have unsatisfactory sections, but that is not a justification for adding more. Referenced discussions of a subject in popular culture are a useful addition to articles. Lists of unreferenced trivia are not. Our aim should be to make Wikipedia a first rate encyclopedia, not a ragbag of trivia. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle in fiction