Talk:Seaxwulf

Sexwulf's identity

I've added a help request to my talk page, because I'm concerned that my recent edit to this article might constitute 'original research': feel free to add any useful comments there. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look it over when I get home, and can double check some things. As long as you attribute any opinions to published experts, you're probably safe. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thank you, I'm glad someone's picked it up at last! Note that I've just saved a tinker with the structure of the paragraph in question, "Hugh Candidus ... Mercian kingdom." Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(undid indent)

I'm in the process of developing a major revision of this article, at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox. Note that this proposed revision only omits some templates in order to avoid unnecessary internal linking: they will remain in the actual article. If you want to comment on the revision, please do so here, on Sexwulf's Talk page. But I'm still looking for comments on my own talk page, regarding possible OR: obviously, these should now be based on the projected major revision. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's looking pretty good, you do need to state who thinks that he might have been a son of King Anna. If that's your own theory, then that's OR and needs to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Did you also see my latest little essay, on my talk page (I've just this minute updated it)? If so, and that remains the general view, then fear not - East Anglia's gone! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Major revision

I've just posted a major revision of this article, which has been available for review at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox for some time, but has only received comment from two other editors (Ealdgyth and Chzz). I feel that the most recent comment is sufficiently favourable to justify posting the revision.

It's not a long article, but it's needed some very careful handling - so, I'd be very grateful if any issues you may have with it were initially raised here, rather than by editing the article itself. But don't misunderstand that - I do realise it's not "my" article! (For example, I was expecting to see a "Contents" box, but there isn't one (yet): it you spot why, please do fix it!) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Move

Unless I hear differently, I plan to move this article to Seaxwulf in the near future, as that is the name used by the Handbook of British Chronology. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth – no objections from me, if it's still on your agenda, I think it would be a very sound move! BTW, is the assessment "Stub-Class" still appropriate...? Just wondering. Nortonius (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

• following the recent move, this article needs a copyedit to remove or otherwise explain references to Sexwulf
• The external link PASE is either broken or needs a subscription. If the later, it should have a {{subscription required}} tag
• on the same subject, are there any more easily available (erm, easier to read?) external links for this topic? PASE seems a bit, er, academic
• in the lead, Sexwulf is noted as otherwise spelled "(or Seaxwulf or Saxwulf or Sexulf or Saxulf; before 676 – c.692)" and the lead goes into a little detail for some of them; but the body does not explain these alternate spellings. I note also the ODNB (2010) online ed. uses only Seaxwulf and [Saxulf]. Perhaps the start of the lead should follow the ODNB and the body should explain these varies alternatives?
• also the lead, perhaps should summarise the article more and mention some teasers without going into detail?
• personal preference only but I feel {{Quote}} rather than {{Quotation}} should be used for the ODNB quote
• nitpicking but I could not find Latinised in the OED
• article probable needs a quick run-through for MOS. There was at least one occurrence of 12th century
• I would suggest the image should either be part of the {{infobox bishopbiog}} or in the article; not hanging at the head of the text. My thought is within the {{infobox bishopbiog}} but I know some people think this is wrong if it is not directly related to the subject. I happen to disagree for very early written history but that is just me

--Senra (Talk) 17:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again! I've just saved an edit, which happens to take account of the first two points above, I'd tried to fix the link to PASE earlier but the site was down. Did you get my last email? If you want, I don't mind if you reply on my talk page. Nortonius (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More: yes, PASE is hellish to use, even for an academic - funny thing is, it wasn't so bad, until it was recently re-vamped, which made it much harder to use IMHO, and incidentally broke the links from this article. Apart from DNB, I'm not sure there's anything, though I could be wrong (it's happened before! ;-)) unless you fancy Searle, W.G. (ed.), Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum, Cambridge Univ., 1897, which is just a list of names as I recall (later: i.e., like PASE on paper, only harder to get to)... I think the varied spellings are only there so that if a reader finds this article, they can work out for themselves if it's where they want to be - otherwise we'd get into a list of which version appears where, etc...? You're probably right about the lead, some of it could go in the body. I think quotes like this one look better in a box, it emphasises that it's from DNB, but change it if you like. "Latinised" should probably be "Latinized"...? Anyway, you get the idea - if you want to edit, just click edit and fix it! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WARNING: {{British English}} follows. Well I never! OED:Latinize, latinized even Latinizing! Must be one of the few cases in British English where these forms use a z not an s. AmasingAmazing. All I recognised was that Latinised [sic] was not an English word. I did not know there was such a word as Latinized until I just looked it up. You learn something new every day --Senra (Talk) 19:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the confusing thing is (or it's confused me, anyway!) that it's not only about US vs. UK English exactly, but also about etymology - "latinizare" with a "z" is a late (medieval or early modern?) Latin verb meaning "to Latinise/Latinize", then cultures drift apart, each with their own spellings...! And so it goes on! Nortonius (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)