Talk:Coenred of Mercia

message: It seems that sources either spell this king "Cenred" and also use "Cenwulf" for Coenwulf of Mercia, or else they use "Coenred" and "Coenwulf".  Some examples:
*Cenred: Whitelock, English Historical Documents; Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons; D.P. Kirby; Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England; Walker, Mercia.
*Coenred: Lapidge, Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England; Barbara Yorke; Brown & Farr, Mercia (just "Coenwulf", no mention of Cenred/Coenred); Zaluckyj, Mercia (also just "Coenwulf"); Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle".
Not a strong argument either way, but it would be nice to be consistent with Coenwulf.  Any objections to a move to Coenred of Mercia? Mike Christie (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me, so I moved it. You should put this up for DYK when you're done. We don't get many Anglo-Saxon rulers on the front page. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the move.  I'd be glad to do the DYK thing but I never get the article expanded in time to submit it -- as I recall there's a time limit.  We did get at least one Anglo-Saxon king on the front page -- Aelle of Sussex was on the main page some time last year. Mike Christie (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with the review. I certainly hope this succeeds as there are quite a few subjects where an article of this size is possible while the more traditional 20K and up is not. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 02:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help on the FAC fixes.  Yes, I might have a go at Beorhtwulf.  I keep track of the kings here, and I am vaguely thinking about going for a featured topic at some point; it would require getting everything else at least to GA, which is all that can be done for some of them.  Not sure what to do about people like Ceolwald, but he can wait till everyone else is done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: We do use "æ" in article titles because that gets used in the sources, and is still in use in modern English.  I would prefer not to use "œ" since neither of those things are true, though of course it should be used in quoted Old English. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As both a speaker of Old English, and the most prominent editor at the Old English Wikipedia, I can indeed say that œ was used during the Old English period. The beginning of the œ article states how this letter was used for the runestaff ᛟ (œðel/odal). In fact I'd say that the letter combination oe was more rare. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 15:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Are you saying we should use it?  I don't think it's necessary; we typically don't use thorns or yoghs or eths in article titles.  The only exceptions are articles such as œthel. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For both consistency and historic accuracy. It's sorta strange to have æ in various Anglo-Saxon-related article titles, yet its o-based counterpart is not represented, rendered instead as the less-accurate oe. While the consonants mentioned are not used in English article titles, I at least feel Old English vowel representation should be consistent, and since the use of æ is dominant across Wikipedia, it would make sense for œ to be used as well. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The most relevant page for this discussion is probably WP:DIACRITICS; that section does mention both æ and œ, but I don't see a definite answer there, perhaps because it is still debated.  You might want to post on the talk page there and see what responses you get.  My own feeling is that we should reflect the sources; if secondary sources used œ then so should we, but in general they do not -- only the primary sources do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I find the section on Bede confusing. I have made a couple of amendments to clarify it, but there are still issues I am not clear about. The article states that Bede had no contact for the Mercian church, but then says that Charters etc provide additional information on his reign, which appears a non-sequitur. Coenred (as Cenred) is mentioned several times in Bede, and Mercia more often in the index than any other kingdom, so it seems that even if he knew little about the Mercian church, he knew a fair amount about its kingdom, which is what matters for this article. Dudley Miles 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point Yorke is making in that source is made in several sources: it's that Bede gathered his information from a variety of sources, primarily ecclesiastical; this is important in understanding the limitations of Bede's coverage.  See the second half of Bede#Sources for more on his correspondents.  Since this is an article on Coenred, not Bede, I think it was worth just a passing comment -- that section does talk about sources, after all, and it should mention the limitations of the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's the earlier history that's most coloured by Bede's lack of a Mercian correspondent.  I think you're right; it's confusing as is.  How about just cutting the whole sentence that starts "Bede lived in Northumbria"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd be less comfortable with that -- I don't like using a primary source in that way unless a secondary source also finds the material worth quoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest you either put here on the talk page a suggested version of the relevant part of the lead, or else just be bold and make the edit and we can discuss. I agree primary sources can be helpful -- for colour, if nothing else -- but I'm not completely clear what your edit would look like, so I'm not sure how you would like to use the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bede 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose This may be a matter of individual preference, but I prefer using the normal modern English alphabet.  If modern secondary sources use the current spelling then this is what we should go for.  The English Wikipedia is written in modern English, not old English. PatGallacher (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says it's a ligature in Latin. Wodenhelm (Be polite before proceeding) 03:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If older books on OE (from the 19th century, even; yes, I've actually touched one before) could have proper ashes, then I'm sure they could get œ right. Espreon (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It currently reads as if Coenred reigned from 675–709, and that Mercia then became part of England, from 704 to 709-- but something else is meant. My change here made in much more clear, but you gave no reason for your revert. tahc chat 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also worded more clearly back when it was the day's featured article. tahc chat 16:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought your version did not sound right as it seems to imply that Mercia still exists. However, I agree that the version I reverted to is also unsatisfactory. The version when it was a TFA is better, as you say. Alternatively we could change your sentence to "Mercia was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the English Midlands." The comma between "Mercia" and "from" should be deleted. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Any version of "Mercia was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the English Midlands." sounds good. tahc chat 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Mercia part of England? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coenred of 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/20110606121535/http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/pelteret/Lsp/Lsp%202.htm to http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/pelteret/Lsp/Lsp%202.htm
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) 06:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified