This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
I agree. The spelling Edred is actually quite a rarity these days, at least in most serious scholarship. The same goes for the modernised variant Edwy, which is now more commonly written as Eadwig. (Cavila (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC))Reply
I like Edred and will probably always spell it that way, but if it need be, to keep Wikipedia abreast of academic fads (and thus more respectable), I support the change. Both spellings are contemporary. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The 1911 Britannica used both Ed- forms. When the change has taken place - probably the detestable 15th edition - would require more research than I am free to do at the moment. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), PASE (Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England) and the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England all favour 'Eadwig' and 'Eadred'. Admittedly, current spelling conventions happen to be a little inconsistent. The spellings 'Edward', 'Edmund' and 'Edgar' are attested more frequently than the Ead-variant (though the latter does appear every now and then), while the Ead-spelling is generally retained when the names do not refer to these kings. (and for similar cases, compare the ash-names Athelstan/Æthelstan, Æthelwulf/Ethelwulf, etc. or names with Beorht-/Bryht-/Byrht- as their first theme). Fortunately, of course, we don't really have to ditch either name, but it appears logical to me if we adopted the prevalent spelling for the primary lemma. (Cavila (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC))Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The DNB article (see edit earlier today) is not plagiarism: it is not used in the article and it is credited. It may be copyright violation, or there may be a fair use defence. If anything from it was used in the article, it would be credited, in just the same way as any other external source. Stikko (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
For the record. In order to credit something, you need to specify your source, but all you did was a simple copypaste. No doubt you did that in good faith and we're only talking talk page space here, so I'm sorry if the edit summary came off a little too strong. You're right to point out that the real concerns are to do with copyright or fair use. For editors who'd like to use the article but don't have access to the (new) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the diff is here (or contact me). Cavila (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you wish then do so, but you should perhaps take into consideration that the infobox says he was "King of the English" not King of England, people in Northumbria (York at least) were at this point in history mostly Scandinavian or descendants of Scandinavians. But I certainly understand your point, do what you think is best. 06:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
My reason for referring to him as 'King of Northumbria (as King of the English)' was that (AFAIK) he used the title 'King of the English' throughout his reign and never used the title 'King of Northumbria'. And the first king whom wiki calls 'King of England' is William the Conqueror. I will therefore make the amendment suggested above. Alekksandr (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah man, I agree with you mostly, but just to correct you (wikepedia really) England included Northumbria as part of it for about 100 years before the Norman conquest. So technically William was not the first King of (all) England. In fact Æthelstan was the first King of England as he was the first to have possesion of all the seven former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, that was before Eadred.12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
