Talk:Edmund Ironside

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Removed Edmund has also been connected with the Truelove Eyre legend, and some sources, impossible to confirm, insist that he was the famous knight's grandfather. There is no shred of evidence (beyond circumstantial) to support this claim, but it persists nonetheless. as being unencyclopedic. --Henrygb 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wasnt he stabbed in the toilet?I've heard this several times before and i added it but someone deleted it.Could someone clarify this for me? Dermo69

[edit] Requested move

Edmund II of England → Edmund Ironside – No disambiguation required as about nine out of ten Google books hits would appear to refer to this Edmund Ironside which justifies moving Edmund Ironside to Edmund Ironside (disambiguation). The regnal number is not always found in references, but "Ironside" does appear to be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The request succeeded. -Dijxtra 08:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as requester (should be obvious, but ...) Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Hardly a difficult decision. It's awkward to put numerals in the names of pre-Norman English kings anyway. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support: my understanding is that numerical names didn't occur until the reign of Edward III of England anyway and that numericals have been added to earlier kings posthumously. Unfortunately the system doesn't work if you include the Saxon kings of England because then Edward the Elder would become Edward I, and Edward I of England would become Edward IV. -- Roleplayer 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. In addition to the refs below, Rulers and Governments of the World (a three-volume work) lists him as "Edmund Ironside", sans ordinal. --SigPig 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Support: I can't claim any great knowledge, but I have only ever come accross him as being refered to as Edmund Ironside. Alun 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm removing my vote, I think both arguments have merit and as I have said I am no sort of authority and am ambivalent about this proposal, as such I think it would be best not to support or oppose the suggested change. Alun 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Naming Conventions, which decide on the names used in articles, make it quite clear that monarchs, for consistency reasons, are listed using an ordinal. Exceptions, where a cognomen are used, are rare and are only used where the is international recognition of a name (e.g., Charlamagne, or confusion over ordinals (e.g., Henry the Lion, because he was both Henry III as Duke of Saxony and Henry XII as Duke of Bavaria). Where the monarch is not internationally known, and where there is no dispute over ordinal, the format used is to create a redirect page under the cognomen and have the name page at the ordinal format. That makes sense. The benefit of using ordinals rather than cognomens is that people can see a sequence. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So are we to use a mixture of ordinals and cognomen for different kings in the same order of succession? Surely that's just as confusing? -- Roleplayer 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why cognomens weren't used at all, except with the likes of Charlamagne, on WP until relately recently. WP has now decided to allow occasional usage, but they should be very occasional, very rare, special occasions. It makes more sense to place the monarch's page at the one with the ordinal, and use the cognomen as the redirect. It is far easier for people to know that Henry IV comes after Henry III and before Henry V, than to work out whether the guy they called The Bald was before or after The Brave, and whether he was around about the time of the guy they called The Great, who was before The Old, except in the case of The Old Pretender who was afterwards!!! FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that avoiding that sort of confusion is why we have those succession box thingies and the ugly old "Monarch of England" template at the bottom of the page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's better not to confuse the two in the same order of succession. As I pointed out above, if ordinals were used for all Saxon English kings we run into trouble because there were three English kings called Edward before Edward I of England was even a twinkle in his mother's eye. -- Roleplayer 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, per Calgacus--Aldux 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose- per Fear Astrotrain 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - for consistency, it is better to stay with Edmund II and redirect Ironside. Changing just creates confusion. -- Beardo 09:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Consistency ? He's preceded by Edward the Martyr and Ethelred the Unready and followed by Canute the Great, Harthacanute, Harold Harefoot and Edward the Confessor. Whatever else the current name does, it doesn't provide consistency. Quite the opposite. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Support Overwhelmingly known as such, there is no ambiguity and many of the pre-conquest monarchs already are at numeral-free names. Haukur 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I can give my support to this one only because there are no other pre-Conquest kings with numerals in the title. There is no inconsistency, therefore (except for the inconsistency that exists between the enumeration of pre- and post-Conquest monarchs in the first place). The rule for such pre-Conquest monarchs should now be epithets and patronymics, not numerals. Srnec 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

My rationale for requesting this move is entirely subjective, and is based on my recollection of what the books I read as child called Edmund. Edmund Ironside seems to come out ahead in ghits, and in gbooks, and the Edmund II's usually say Edmund II (Ironside), Edmund II Ironside, Edmund II known as Edmund Ironside, and the like. Conversely, Edmund Ironside references don't appear to mention Edmund II. In other words, you could know that the subject was called Edmund Ironside, but not Edmund II, whereas it would be very unlikely that you could know that subject as Edmund II only. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage: