Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ancestry ....

There is no need for an "ancestry family tree" - there are two very good charts in the beginning of the article which are sourced and give the collateral relatives as well as the important ancestors. These give the relatives that had an impact on William's life. His remote ancestors had no bearing on his life. Also - this is a featured article - everything in it needs to be sourced to high quality reliable sources. Nothing in that chart was sourced. Nor is there a need to put the children into a table - the information is perfectly well presented in a list and a list is easier for folks with screen readers to access. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And the ancestry chart that was just re-reverted out (after being added for a third time with an edit summary of "... referenced...") is still not got a single reference. It's still trivia, still unreferenced, and we still avoid using tables for information that can be presented as lists because of MOS:ACCESS. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the removal of the ahnentafel. I only wonder if a chart such as the one in Mary, Queen of Scots#Ancestry has been considered. It seems easier to read and provides wikilinks to the relatives. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that squares with MOS:ACCESS and screen readers, honestly. I've tried to make sure that the relatives are introduced in the running text so that folks without the ability to read the chart can still get the connections. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I know they are easier to make and make changes, but they take up a lot of space and can interrupt the flow of the page, plus there are some things you simply cannot do with them, at least in as aesthetically-pleasing way. On the Mary one, the bold boxes make it too busy and draw my attention away from the names and connections, the relevant information, but these charts can be done without outlines (e.g. Alfonso the Battler#Ancestry). I think the charts we have here just have too much going on - in that format they would either be so wide they wouldn't fit on any screen, or else they would have to have so many convoluted zig-zag lines and generational offsets mandated by spacing issues that it would be hard to follow who is related to whom and lose the sense of timing (e.g. English monarchs' family tree#Houses of Lancaster and York, where John of Gaunt's Beaufort children are on the same horizontal as their half-brother's great-grandson). Agricolae (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ealdgyth. Any information that can be presented clearly without a table should be presented without a table. They are ugly, take up inordinate space, and some editors feel compelled to fill in blank fields even when the information is unknown. As to these ancestry table templates found on an ever-growing number of pages, they tend to be overused/gratuitous, under-cited, too formulaic one-size-fits-all productions that include numerous non-noteworthy ancestors while ignoring important relationships relevant to understanding the article subject. They likewise encourage a fill-in-the-blank mentality. Agricolae (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agatha

While we're gathered... I'm looking at the rather lengthy footnote for Agatha, and wondering if we have enough there and in other sources to put her into her own article? We have articles on other subjects that might or might not exist... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I can see a couple of advantages - preventing content forking on William's and Alfonso's pages, reducing the need for such a detailed note here, yet I am very hesitant to adopt/extend this precedent. Just thinking about how the lead sentence would go puts up several red flags. While we have a few pages on genealogical conundra, those that come to mind are unsatisfying dumps for material too complex and peripheral for the articles on related notables. Agricolae (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not wedded to the idea, but it's a really big footnote here. I was thinking a bit of Sybil (wife of Pain fitzJohn) as an example. To be fair, however, we do know that Sybil existed and that she married Pain, so she's a bit less nebulous. A better example might be Pontius Pilate's wife (and while I'm looking at that - great example of the problems with infoboxes/tables - check out Pontius Pilate where in the infobox his "wife" is given a name... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the way religious scholars and theological historians have debated pinhead-dancing angels for decades, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a substantial body of scholarship on the question of Pontius Pilate'a wife, justifying an article. With Agatha, we are likely to have the opinions of two or three scholars independently giving their personal opinions, with no coherent narrative or consensus. That makes for a low-quality he-said she-said (or on this case maybe he-said él-dijo) article. I am reminded of the quagmire that is Sigrid the Haughty/Gunhild of Wenden/Świętosława, a wife or wives or not of Sweyn Forkbeard. Agricolae (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

See also

Probably should be a link to Cultural depictions of William the Conqueror in a "See Also" section.. as is expected in most historical biography articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.10.236 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No explanation for the title "William the Bastard"

The article opens with reference to a less common title for William I, as "William the Bastard"

From the article: "William I[a] (c. 1028[1] – 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087"

However, there is no explanation for where this title came from anywhere in the article. Ctrl + F only finds results for "bastard" in the opening sentence, and the notes, citations, and references sections. It would be worth mentioning if he was born out of wedlock, or if there is another reason for this name.

Plebian poblano (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In the early life section, his illegitimacy is mentioned. And again .. the first sentence of "Early challenges" is "William faced several challenges on becoming duke, including his illegitimate birth and his youth: the evidence indicates that he was either seven or eight years old at the time." Not quite sure how much clearer that can be... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

According to the Usborne History of Britain Kings and Queens, William the Conqueror was born in 1027. Elementboy8 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We prefer scholarly academic sources, which that source is definitely not. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Family tree

If I remember correctly, Agricolae, you prefer the boxes without borders, as in Henry I of England#Family tree. I've tried that too, but something goes off with the entry for Herleva. Surtsicna (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No - I don't like that template format much at all for showing complex sets of relationships. I find it too restrictive and too space-hungry. Agricolae (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you really prefer the .svg file? I find it much more restrictive and space-hungry. Surtsicna (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

In this specific case, yes. There is no way so much information could be displayed in a single chart occupying only half a page-width using the other format, without spreading the names so far vertically, connected with lines zig-zagging back and forth, that it becomes nearly unreadable as many of those templated trees are. Agricolae (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I really destest those templates ... I find them difficult to work with and finicky and subject to errors. Give me a nice image anyday. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

"Several unsuccessful rebellions followed, but by 1075 William's hold on England was mostly secure, allowing him …." is not a contrary statement if it is already established in the previous subpart that they rebellions were unsuccessful = "Several unsuccessful rebellions followed, and by 1075 William's hold on England was mostly secure, allowing him …." 2605:E000:9149:8300:693B:CD7E:41B2:8D1B (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

External links...

I strongly suggest that Wikipedia:External links be read by editors trying to add a link to this site. Pay special attention to the first point under WP:ELNO: "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page.". Nothing in the link is not already contained in this article... it's not a suitable link to include. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Depression....

This article is a featured article, which means it uses high quality reliable sources. In history, this means peer reviewed academic sources. History.com or history extra are not such sources. They do not state where they ge thrower information and the page cited from history.com is not authored by a historian who specializes in medieval history. It also relates the story that Matilda didn’t want anything to do with Williams offer of marriage, which is not considered to be factual by historians. The history.wxtra also isn’t authored by a specialist in the time period..it appears Borman is mainly concerned with Tudor history. Neither source meets the requirement for high quality sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

Under the Revolt of the Earls Section, It should also mention that Waltheof's spouse, Judith of Lens betrayed him to her uncle, who happened to be William himself. EtanoS24 (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

I want to add the fact that William was also descendant from Charlemagne. Borges123xyz (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Can't see how to add a new note but article refers to Waltheof of Northampton and I believe this should be "of Northumbria". 91.125.80.174 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears to be correct. Please read: Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria#First revolt where it states that "he was appointed Earl of Northampton". Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 03:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Two different monarchies

England before and after the Norman Conquest are considered two different monarchies. This is why the numbering is separate. King Edward III the Confessor is not to be confused with King Edward III of the Post-Conquest Monarchy.

The succession boxes for King William I do a very poor job of reflecting this fact. I've tried to point this out for a very long time in the Archives of this very Talk Page, but now I am better at describing what I mean here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

How so? I'm afraid i don't really follow what you mean about the succession boxes; whether it's the same monarchy or different (and saying different is not entirely clear how), the position/title was King of England, which is what the box shows (i'm assuming you don't have an issue with the Normandy one). How are you suggesting it be changed? If i look at James VI & I, not the same, but a similar situation, i suppose we could have two boxes in one in some way, with Edgar in one, not succeeded, and William in the other, not preceded. Frankly, though, that ~ or anything else ~ is going to be confusing to the reader, as well as not at all in line with how it was viewed at the time ~ William considered himself the legitimate heir to Edward, didn't see himself starting a new monarchy. I suggest we leave it alone. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 05:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what William the Conqueror said at the time, that he was the legitimate heir of Saint Edward the Confessor. That's clearly a pile of crap, though, because legitimate heirs inherit naturally without having to wage a war. The Battle of Hastings was essentially a revolutionary war to replace one monarchy with another, even if William of Normandy would have refused to admit that fact.

He was the first King of the Post-Conquest State of England, in the same way that Narmer also known as Menes was the first Pharaoh, despite their being many Egyptian Kings (in Upper and Lower Egypt, and probably ruling over many more smaller regions than just those two, even earlier). Do we regard Narmer as the "legitimate heir" to the King of Lower Egypt that he conquered, or do we all agree that would be a farce?

When asked to support the invasion, Pope Alexander II basically said, "Sure, William, just send me more money. I'm sick of the Peter's Pence tradition having largely fizzled out in Britain." Supporting an almost farcical hereditary claim was, to Pope Alexander II, basically just a front to fill the Vatican coffers. Who could blame him? We all like making more money if we can help it.

Anyway, there might be a simpler way. There is a reason why the numbering restarted, with a much later King Edward I despite Edward the Confessor having been Edward III. Maybe a note in the succession box on a change from one royal House to another, along with an explanation somewhere in the main text on why the new (basically pressing the reset button) regnal numbering scheme? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Link to Encyclopaedia Britannica

Ealdgyth

You deleted my link to the article in EB1911 as an 100 year out of date encyclopedia article. Might I point you to details about the author: Author:Henry William Carless Davis; he was an Oxford Regius Professor of Modern History and wrote numerous historical articles, including another about your chum William II of England . Might I ask you to judge the EB1911 article's merits (for linking to) on both its contents and author rather than its age. I'd be happy to link it from another category, sometime used "Further Reading" if you prefer. ArbieP (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what his qualifications were -- he did not have the benefit of the last 100 years of research. External links should not connect the reader to out-of-date sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Changes to citation layout

GoldRingChip, I don't have a strong opinion about most of your changes, but I think the use of dashes for author's names when citing more than one work is not a good idea. I think it makes the citations harder to read and looks ugly. Was the change made partly by script? A lot of the edit was capitalization changes and changes to the order of parameters, which are cosmetic edits and make it harder to see what was actually changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This sort of edit is just ... annoying. And it's even more annoying when the editor has been asked to stop changing citation styles on articles that aren't inconsistent and that they basically drop in, change the style, then never edit again. WP:CITEVAR exists for a reason - to stop this sort of thing. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In case it's been forgotten - was where I pointed out WP:CITEVAR again ... just two months ago. I see it's also been done on King Stephen, Henry II, King John, and Henry III. It wouldn't be so annoying if the editor was actually editing the articles to improve them... but just swooping in, changing the style, and leaving is exactly what CITEVAR means to stop. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I'd have reverted these edits if this were an article I was active on. GoldRingChip, I agree with Ealdgyth. These edits are not a good use of time. And I see there are others in your recent edit history. You've been around a long time; you must know these edits are not a good idea on articles that have a consistent style, as most GAs and FAs will have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede image

For 10 years the article has begun with the image of William at Hastings, on horseback, showing his face. An editor is now wishing to replace that image with one cropped from a pre-battle conference with his brothers, showing WIlliam sitting, and is meeting resistence. As the previous image choice arose through a Talk discussion, admittedly a limited one, such a change should also be discussed, so I invite comment on preferences for one or the other image, or for any alternatives one would suggest. Agricolae (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 

• Comment First, to address other alternatives, I support the general preference for a contemporary representation over more recent artists' portraiture, leaving us with embroidery or coin, and the embroidery is such a unique asset that we should make the most of the tapestry. Which tapestry image? It needs to be unambiguously William, with a strong institutional preference for left- or center-facing portraiture for the lede/infobox image. When this was discussed, I came up with three options, but the links are now dead so I am not sure which three they were - these were likely two of the three. I see advantages and disadvantages to both. The 'conference' one is certainly a more classical representation of a king (though he wasn't at the time), and I view his name surrounding him as a net positive, yet, as was pointed out in the original discussion, there is something iconic about the image of William showing his face in battle that seems more dynamic, more representational of his character, and more unique as an image rather than just a 'king sitting there' as is so common of early representations of kings. Also, this shoud not be treated as a simple image swap - something is lost to the body in removing the image of William conferring with his two brothers. (And William showing his face at Hastings was specifically cropped that way for the lede - if it is to be illustrated in the body instead, a different crop is called for, showing the entire horse.) I lean toward the battle image, but not strongly so. Agricolae (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• I prefer the mounted image - it better reflects what he's best known for - conquering England. It's also different than many of the medieval monarch images, which often are the "seated on throne" theme. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that editor was me. The reason that I prefer the seated image is mainly how it is a much clearer depiction of William. The mounted depiction is a chaotic battlefield picture, only his face is visible, completely from his side, and with his hand and helmet distracting from his face - the tapestry designers likely intended it as a single moment from the battle, while the seated version is taken as a dignified portrait of the man. I don't see how the mounted one being an "uncommon depiction of a medieval king" is to any merit. Gaioa (T C L) 09:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

We are now 2 weeks in, with an underwhelming number of responses, but there certainly isn't a consensus to change the image. Agricolae (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that both have their merits.

The image of William mounted is arguably much more famous than the seated depiction, and has been the lead image for quite some time. It does, as Ealdgyth has said, represent the common thought of William's legacy: conquering England (William the Conqueror). It also is a full-length portrait, which is often used for British and English monarchs.

However, I do think that the seated image is good too. You can definitely see more of his face, with the famous Norman chainmail haircut, and while it is a pre-renaissance depiction it paints a clearer picture of what William looked like. He is discussing with his brothers, sword in hand, pointing to it as if readying for battle, so that element is not entirely lost. His name surrounds him, which I also count as a positive. The embroidery of the drapery and body in the seated portrait are more realistic than in the battlefield image. His cloak, boots and clothes are all rendered in quite fine and lifelike detail for the time, and I think is something we should take advantage of.

The hand on the battlefield image does slightly distract from his face. The battlefield depiction (BD) is also quite a tall and thin image, quite an awkward shape. The BD also has an unsightly overexposed strip on the left hand side. The seated depiction (SD) is a better quality image, with slightly nicer lighting and colour.

MOS:IMAGEQUALITY also states "Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images...showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter...and so on..." In my opinion, the BD is cluttered, cropped out of a busy battlefield in which he is not the main attraction. In the SD, he is a focal point, conferring with his brothers. Seated images were also a more common way to show rulers of that time (see this, this, this, this, this, this and this.)

We can still have the image of William on the battlefield in the article, but what he looked like takes precedent over a full-length image in the lead, which is why I slightly prefer the seated image. The side of a person's face doesn't show you what they look like; being in armour his hairstyle is lacking, hairstyles being a large part of a person's appearance. Like I have said, the SD gives a better impression of WtC's looks.

Thank you for reading. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I didn't even realize the first image depicted William on horseback until I read this thread. I think the first image should be better cropped from the tapestry, or the second image should be used, since it is a full-face image and not a side-profile. KingAntenor (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to insert the following photo, which I took myself, at the top as a portrait of William. The Bayeux Tapestry will be presented later anyway and the photo simply gives more than a mini-cutout of the tapestry. Are there any objections?

• 

--Xbra (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the present image is better -- it's closer to contemporary, not damaged, and shows a significant event. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for over 11 months now; it's probably a good idea to have an RfC on the topic. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Edgar the Aetheling...

Was not crowned and isn't usually included on most king lists. There is no way he's considered "Edgar II of England" and should not be named such in the infobox here. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

I think that the image featured in this article looks dated. I suggest that we choose a better image. Dinuwikian (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Circa links...

I didn't mean JUST the circa links, but ALL the links in the article - the rest of the article links to other articles are not underlined, I see no need for the circa ones to be inconsistent with the others. The usage of the lk parameter is perfectly fine and allowed. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation changes...

Please read WP:CITEVAR - changing something that's consistent and is not wrong to an editor's own preference is not something we do. All of the changes were reverted (except the change of the template name at the bottom) because all of them contravened CITEVAR - the short citations don't need commas, the citations do not need to be set with last and first parameters, it was harder to keep the bibliography in alphabetical order by putting the date parameter first occasionally, and the column sizes and indentation are NOT required or an improvement in my mind. There is no requirement to change just to change - what happens on other articles isn't required to happen on this article as long as the style is consistent - which it is. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes per CITEVAR just before I saw this post. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That "column sizes and indentation are NOT required or an improvement in my mind" is not a standard for reverting. In my mind (or specifically, to my eyes), the change in column sizes and indentation were an improvement. —GoldRingChip 19:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

CITEVAR is very clear - changes to the style of the references need consensus before being made, if the article is already consistent. It's designed to prevent folks going around and randomly changing to their preferences when they are not the primary editors involved in editing and maintaining the article. I do not follow around and revert your changes in situations where the citations aren't consistent nor do I go around to other articles imposing my own preferences - if an article is using sfn, I use sfn. If its using list defined, I use list defined, even if I'm making copyedits to the references. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point of CITEVAR is to avoid editwars over things that editors can reasonably disagree on. Also, I would suggest that regardless of CITEVAR it's not a good idea to make a change of this scale to a featured article without suggesting it on the talk page first -- typically a featured article has had multiple editors review it, and you can save yourself editing time by getting consensus first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)