Talk:Æthelwealh of Sussex

Rewrite
Article originally cited no sources. I have found a few on the Web and rewritten the article based only on verifiable information. I have removed stub templates because I think the article now contains everything known about the man. --Meyer 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work! I couldn't find much else other than Kirby's Earliest English Kings (pp. 118–119) suggests that Eadric of Kent may have been established on the throne with South Saxon aid, as a client. That's it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Move
I moved this to "Æthelwealh of Sussex". I found a lot of variation in secondary sources, but four of seven used the Æ ligature, with two using "Ae" and one using "E"; and four of seven (not the same four) used "wealh" rather than "walh". There were two using "Æthelwealh", two using "Æthelwalh", and two using "Aethelwealh", so "Æthelwealh" seemed the best choice. Mike Christie (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So there wasn't really any good reason for the move.


 * But worse than that, you also failed to fix the sort keys so that it would sort properly in its categories after you made the move. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Æthelw[e]alh is how the name appears in the more reliable sources, and where it's Aethelw[e]alh, we can be pretty sure that was an artefact of the typesetting process. Anyway, yes, the sort key would be wrong. It's perfectly understandable for you to gripe about it, but you know that the problem of bad sort keys will never really go away. Thanks for noting this, it reminded me to fix some I moved yesterday. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't known about DEFAULTSORT till this discussion, so I'm glad you mentioned that. As far as the move being inappropriate is concerned, I suggest you post a request at WP:RM if you feel strongly about it.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)