Talk:Edmund I

message: The end of this section contains an out of place sentence on the revival of monasteries. That said, the entire paragraph is just as much about his alliances and conquering as it is the threats posed to him or his kingdom. Request moving of last sentance or retitling the subheading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.18.119 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Threats Subheading

message: Edmund I of England → Edmund the Deed-Doer — Consistency. No other pre-Conquest kings of England are titled with their numeral. All use their epithet or patronymic. I know this move is unobstructed, but I want to make sure there is concensus first. Srnec 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. Srnec 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments here.
AKA "Edmund the Magnificent"- Streona  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There doesn't seem much point in quoting Higden's paraphrase of William of Malmesbury when Giles' translation of the Gesta Regum Anglorum is available here [archive.org]. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polychronicon 

message: I suggest moving to Edmund the Elder, as this seems to be his most common cognomen.  We seem to be moving away from using regnal numbers for pre-Conquest kings on Wikipedia, see the talk page for Harold Godwinson. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the most common cognomen over Edmund the Deed Doer or Edmund the Magnificent? Presumably he was not called the Elder during his life nor until 1012 or so--Streona (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Elder" has been used on occasion, but it's still rare and in view of his father's identical nickname, potentially confusing. I guess that "the Magnificent" was more in vogue with 19th-century historians, but the problem with all these nicknames is not necessarily that they are late (as so often) or biased, but that they are only sporadically used to identify him these days. Per Angus's comments above (2006, no less), I'd suggest "Edmund of England" (or perhaps "Edmund of Wessex"), though I'm not extremely bothered by the numeral. Cavila (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You're quite right to ask whether there's a suitable alternative to the ordinal to distinguish the two Edmunds. Unlike Harold Godwinson, however, and in fact most other 9/10/11th-century kings with shared names, Edmund (I) is not widely known by any cognomen in secondary sources these days. Perhaps a modern biography will appear one day (hopefully so!) and breathe new life into one of these, but until such time, it would be unwise to use any of them to replace "I". In modern usage, it's either Edmund I or simply Edmund (perhaps Edmund Ironside's nickname and brief reign make disambiguation slightly less necessary?). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for instance, has "Edmund I", with an obit attached to it, while in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, his entry is to be found under "Edmund" (the others under "Edmund Ironside" and "Edmund, St, King of East Anglia"). (BTW, the Brunanburh poem has ealdorlange tir, which refers to the half-brothers Æthelstan and Edmund achieving "long-lasting/eternal fame" in battle, not "elder of ancient race".) Cavila (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edmund I is anachronistic. Numerals weren't used until after the Norman Conquest. Richard75 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern references refer to him as "Edmund I" overwhelmingly. 50.111.25.199 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2

message: I am confused about this section. It says that Hugh brushed aside Edmund's threats, yet the quotation below says that Hugh responded by restoring Louis to his kingdom. Can anyone clarify? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Louis IV says Hugh the Great agreed "ultimately" to restore Louis and credits Edmund, among other things, for this. Maybe we should drop the "brush aside" bit? It's only referenced to Richer's history rather than a secondary source. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done as you suggest. The whole section is OR, and the article needs drastic revision. Some day I hope to get around to it, if no one else does. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Do you have Halloran's "A Murder at Pucklechurch" article. It can be downloaded here (free registration needed). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis IV of France 

message: This needs a caption stating clearly that it is a 19th century illustration. (It is a coloured lithographic print)
Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead pic

message: The good available description of the death of Edmund I does not indicate a murder took place, rather, Edmund started a fight which resulted in his death.  As the poor Leofe was in fear for his life, a reasonable court could only consider that he defended himself using reasonable force, which hardly would count as committing murder.  there is no indication that he came to the feast to kill Edmund, and quite clearly the fight was started by Edmund.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyyours137 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder ? surely not. 

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 per (not-so-strong) consensus. WP:NCROY notwithstanding, the title "Edmund I" is consistent with other kings of pre-Conquest England, and is (mostly) unambiguous.   No such user (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Edmund I →  – WP:NCROY states that 'kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}".' The normal policy, therefore, would be to title King Edmund as Edmund I of England. Векочел (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other English monarchs without the "of England" disambiguator, when no title disambiguation is really needed, such as Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure Edmund I is of nearly the same fame as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. If pageviews are worth anything, both appear to be more well known than King Edmund. Векочел (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, Edmund the Martyr has never been referred to as "Edmund I", so no disambiguation is necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  Is there another name for this king that is commonly used? If not, then the only name that is commonly used must logically be an overwhelmingly common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 January 2022 

message: Page ranges are full in accordance with MOS:PAGERANGE; the "UK" as in "London, UK" etc is removed because the sources are almost all UK and readers don't need to be told the publication cities are in the UK; the WP:ISBNs for need not include hyphens (the key editing concern is consistency in the article) WP:WHENINROME.  – S. Rich (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes