This article contains stuff not directly related to the kingdom, such as more recent history and dialects etc. Can someone undo it please? ðarkuncoll 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply Because this page is meant to be about the Kingdom of Mercia. Mercia is still a name used today and asuch there needs to be a seperation of the Kingdom and the modern meaning. The Quill (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Who said this page was supposed to be about the Kingdom of Mercia? ðarkuncoll 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I want to find an article on Mercia, I'll search for 'Mercia'. I won't make any hair-splitting distinctions and will be much better informed if I can find the historical and contemporary usages in the same place. Why 'Kingdom of Mercia', any more than 'Kingdom of England'? Not all post-kingdom history is modern either: think of Leofric and Aelfgar. David Robins (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do we revert it? Do we need an admin to do it? ðarkuncoll 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted it for you. I suggest you review the moving editor's other page moves (e.g., Wessex, and so on), because it looks like all the heptarchy kingdoms and related areas have also been moved by The Quill.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've also left a suitable message on The Quill's talk page asking for the other page moves to be reverted unless and until agreement to their moves are obtained on the appropriate talk pages, rather than moving them and then singlehandedly attempting to state what the articles ought to be about.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The meaning of Mercia comes from the english word merchant. In spanish the word mercado means market. The land of the Mark or market. This border country was the marketplace for the surrounding areas. a map of economic activity would be useful here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenGordonPaterson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply Penda and the Mercian Supremacy/Mercian religion edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This section has been fleshed out and edited to a disproportionate length. It needs to be trimmed down again and cited details moved to main articles if they are not duplicated. Metabaronic (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've moved 2 paragraphs from the Supremacy section into a new one covering Mercian religion.Metabaronic (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply Tolkien and "translation" edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't believe someone actually cited a fictional appendix to a fictional book to make an assertion of fact.

Tolkien did not translate some actual Rohirric language into Mercian. He wrote that language as Mercian ab initio, and came up with a fictionalized rationalization for it as he explained in the Appendices. Those Appendices do NOT purport to be factual. They're part of the literary conceit of Tolkien as translator of the Red Book of Westmarch rather than the author who concocted the thing from whole cloth.

If you want the facts, look at Letters. As I do not have my copy to hand at the moment I have left the citation as it was, but please let's not pretend in an encyclopedia that fiction is really history. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply Contemporary Mercian groups edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have removed the 'Mercian National Party' and 'Mercian Socialist Party' as I don't think they deserve a mention unless they can be proved to be actual 'groups', i.e. consisting of more than one person between them. Cdh1984 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

After looking at the webpage of 'Sovereign Mercia', I'm hardly convinced that it exists as anything other than a personal website either. I don't think it has a place here unless it can be established that the 'group' is an actual existing entity that campaigns or holds functions offline. Cdh1984 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply Descent from Anglo-Saxon Royalty edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following statement in the article is incorrect:

"The Arden family claim descent from Leofric, Earl of Mercia and as such are one of the few families in England that claim Anglo-Saxon royalty among their ancestors."

- Good grief! A great many families can claim descent from Anglo-Saxon royalty, and most certainly the present Royal family, and quite rightly so! Perhaps the person who made this statement meant something else - Mercian Royalty perhaps, though I am uncertain as to whether Earl Leofric could genuinely be described as royalty in any event. Since the statement is so patently false in it's current form, I am removing the second half of this sentence following the word 'Mercia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpretty010 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're obviously right. Mathematically, most west Europeans can reasonably assume Charlemagne, Offa, or almost anyone else alive in the "Dark Ages" as an ancestor - the obvious exception being known celibates. Remember that the spread of your ancestry doubles with each generation you trace back. Use the Power of two page to check. At 40 generations back - mid-Anglo-Saxon times - you can theoretically have over a billion ancestors. That's actually impossible, of course, as it greatly exceeds the actual world population at that time: in reality we are connected to many of our ancestors by multiple lines of descent. However, I would be very surprised if I am not descended from Anglo-Saxon royalty, and from Atilla the Hun and Boudica too, for all it matters. Sjwells53 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply Pronunciation edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an interesting discussion above about the correct pronunciation of Mercia, and I don't dispute that now it is generally pronounced MERS-ia. But given that the derivation of the word is clearly related to the Welsh Marches, and that the letters "er" are frequently pronounced "ar" in English placenames (Derby, Hertford, Berkshire), is it not likely that it was originally pronounced MARCH-ia? Since the Angles spoke a Germanic language, the German cognate Mark (as in Mark Brandenburg, originally in the "Polish Marches") is also relevant. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is an interesting discussion above, and it seems to a non-expert like me that they got it about right in the end. Surely the explananation for the apparently anomalous Derby/Hertford spellings lies in the Great Vowel Shift of the 14th century, at the other end of the Middle Ages, and relates to changes in Middle English, not Anglo-Saxon. The spelling reflects the older pronunciation, which was long retained in regional dialects and US English and is still sometimes used - as in West Derby, Liverpool, which is derived from Lord Derby, the original landowner, but not pronounced as with the traditional county town of Derbyshire. In other words, er never was pronounced like ar, but the spellings got suspended in the old orthography when the pronunciation evolved: the main reason why so many English words appear illogical in spelling is that they are etymological. Sjwells53 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply Kingdom of the Mercians edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Rushton2010. "Miercna rīce" directly translates to "Mercian kingdom". Interpreting this as being synonyms to "Kingdom of Mercia" is not correct, as "Mercia" didn't exist at the time. There was a kingdom of "Mercians", however there was no region called "Mercia". "Miercna" (the only term of that nature at the time) means "Border people", and thus, "Miercna rīce" directly translates to "Mercian kingdom" or "Border peoples kingdom", which is synonyms with "kingdom of the Mercians" or "kingdom of the border people". "Mercia" is a modern term that comes from "Miercna" ("Mercian"), and describes the region where the kingdom of the Mercians was located, however at the time, there was no place called "Mercia". In modern English, historians commonly refer to the kingdom of the Mercians, as the "Kingdom of Mercia", however that is simply combining "Kingdom", what it is, and "Mercia" the name of the region today. Including what the state was named at the time, in my opinion at-least, is useful. If you're still not convinced, I may try to find some research on this. Regards, Rob (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply I note you've made this switch on a number of related pages, from eg "Mercia/Wessex/etc" to "Kingdom of the Mercians/West Saxons/etc". I appreciate that the former terms are probably modern descriptions, but I'm not sure the latter formulation isn't as well. I'm not sure we should be claiming there are definitive names from the time in this way, not least because even if there were official names in old English, there would definitely not have been any modern English translation. Ultimately, it's fine to just use the most common modern English term, or all the equivalent alternatives, rather than suggesting one is the actual, historical name and the other not but, by contrast, some kind of modern invention. N-HH talk/edits 11:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply Linguistically, "Mercian kingdom" is what it translates to, and "kingdom of the Mercians" describes what that term means. I included the latter, as in modern English, the former could be incorrectly interpreted as "of Mercia" (the region), which didn't exist. Many sources refer to the "kingdom of the Mercians" and this source suggests that terms such as "Miercna rīce" are synonymous with "kingdom of the Mercians". I don't think we can talk about official names for these kingdoms, but primary sources show that "Miercna rīce" was the most common term used to refer to the kingdom as the time. Contrasting the most common historical name to the modern names isn't necessary, but informative. Rob (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply You are incorrect to say I am interpreting anything. The article has used "Kingdom of Mercia" as it is the one, along with simply "Merica", that is used near universally by sources. Your attempts to interpret primary sources is not allowed -it is a breach of wikipedia's policy of WP:Original Research. Rushton2010 (talk

I'm not interpreting primary sources, I'm simply stating how common a term is used in a primary source, which is perfectly acceptable as per WP:NOR. Apart from that, I don't disagree with you, and wasn't suggesting otherwise. I'm not arguing that "kingdom of the Mercians" is more commonly used, but rather that it was the term/definition of a term used at the time, and I have supported this with secondary sources. The only other question, like I said, is whether the historical name is even worthy of inclusion (of interest to the reader), which I believe it is. Also, including "Miercna rīce", adjacent to "Kingdom of Mercia", is grammatically misleading, as the terms are not grammatically synonymous (although the definitions are), whereas "kingdom of the Mercians" is. Rob (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The most commonly used term without a doubt is simply "Mercia". It was a Kingdom, ergo "Kingdom of Mercia" - the second most common name. There is nothing grammatically misleading.
What is misleading is incorrectly calling it a "of the Mercians", which incorrectly assumes and implies the kingdom contained only a single race/tribe, the "Mercians" -which of course could not be further from the truth. The kingdom contained countless tribes, even before the expansion of the Mercian Supremacy. The Hwicce and the Pecsæte, or smaller tribes like the Stoppingas for example. Even the people of Tamworth - the capital of Mercia - did not not identify themselves as Mercians, but as the Tomsaete. --Rushton2010 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, how is it not grammatically misleading? Is "kingdom of the Mercians" grammatically synonymous with "Kingdom of Mercia"? No, so how is "Miercna rīce"?

Secondly, so what if it's misleading calling it "of the Mercians"? If it was called that at the time, as my sources collectively suggest, then that is the reason to include it, whether it's misleading is irrelevant, as the article or even lead, should latter describe the tribes that formed the kingdom. The point is to inform the reader about the kingdom's historical name, not to clarify the topic of the article as the current title does perfectly well.

Do you have any reason not to inform the reader on the kingdom's historicall name in some form? Possibly not in the introduction, although I think that is the most appropriate section.

Rob (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

First and foremost "of the Mercians" is not the historical name. Miercna rīce may very well be, but to bastardize it into English, force it into some semblance of modern grammar and claim it a correct "historical" name that would have been used by contemporaries is just preposterous. As stated above, even those in the capital did not identify as "Mercians". In such a huge area occupied by the last vestiges of the various British tribes, the dregs of the Romans, and the multitude of tribes from across the Anglo-Saxon homeland, existing in a somewhat near constant state of conflict and only tentatively held together though warlordship and bonds of kinship and fealty, to claim some form of homogeneous cultural identity and self identification... is just ridiculous. Especially as these were kingdoms of conquest. When the Mercian King conquered the rest of Southern England, did these people become "Mercians" and identify themselves as such? No of course not. But they lived in the "Kingdom of the Mercians" ergo they were Mercian...? The Mercians were the "border people"- In such a large kingdom, did those who lived no where near the border call themselves this over their local or tribal names?
It is the same as why we talk of the historic Kingdom of Scotland, not of the Kingdom of the Scots - its a geograpic/territorial name because the kingdom contained a far larger and varied group of peoples than just the Scots. Mercia, Northumbria, Scotland - they may take their geographic/territorial name from leading group in power, but there was no homogeneous culture, identification and language.
The trouble is that people tend to enforce our modern understanding of the world onto the past. Our modern understanding of what a "state" is, the entirely modern concept of "nationality". Even our modern definitions of words. The one I always use is "Apocalypse" -the modern definition of which could not be further from that of the original. It's why is deathly important to be careful when using such terms. For example the use of "sovereign state" in various Anglo-Saxon articles, relies on a modern definition and implies similarity to modern examples, but in a tribal kingdom with no form of centralised "state"...? Similar is the "absolute monarchy", which is more akin to the late-medieval, early modern period and the divine right of kings. Does it fit as well to a warlord King who's position is not thought divine, who's control of his territories is not centralized or absolute, who frequently rules with "sub" or even "co-kings"?
Anyway. I'd fully support a section about the etymology of the names or the cultural identities of the people. I think it would have to be a section though -It's obviously more detail than can be covered in a passing sentence or two in the introduction.
As a whole the articles about the kingdoms of the Heptarchy are as a whole hugely under referenced, in places I've spotted some quite large inaccuracies and even plainly incorrect information; any addition of good, interesting, referenced material would be great.

Best--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Anglo-Saxon identity is as straight forward as you make out (for example by the 10th century the West Saxons considered themselves "Ænglisc", derived from "Ængle"). Besides, if you were ruled by a Mercian king, you were part of the kingdom of the Mercians, that's effectively what a "king-dom" is. Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, and I would need a source to back up my background knowledge of old English, which quite frankly I don't have time for. You're fully entitled to remove the phrases on other articles if you wish. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply Given name (citation needed) edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has "It also occurs as a female given name.[citation needed]"

What citation do you need? I know two women named Mercia. (Pronounced MER-see-uh) It's an unusual name but it does exist.

Also I found this - http://www.name-statistics.org/za/prenume.php?prenume=Mercia showing app. 14,000 women with the name in SA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.89.0 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply Mercian Monarchy Matrilineal in the Ninth Century? edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Each of the last several Queens of Mercia was a daughter of the previous Queen: Eadburh, Ealhswith, Aethelflaed and Aelfwynn. The husbands of the first three were "King" of Mercia jure uxoris (by right of the wife). Several of the earlier ninth century Kings of Mercia were also not sons of a King in the preceding generation, though a few married either a daughter or later female descendant of one. Is there any secondary source that discusses this? Zoetropo (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply There was no matrilineal descent. Eadburh was daughter of Offa of Mercia and queen of Wessex. Ealhswith and Æthelflæd were daughters of kings of Wessex. These were thus diplomatic marriages. Ælfwynn was daughter of Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, but she was an only child - and was deposed by Edward the Elder within months. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Different Eadburh: yours flourished 789-802 and was depicted by Asser as a poisoner who ended her days penniless in Pavia, but I'm writing about the mother of Ealhswith (died 5 Dec 902) named Eadburh, who was the wife of the Mercian nobleman Æthelred Mucil, Ealdorman of the Gaini. This Eadburh was a member of the Mercian royal family, so a branch of the Mercian royal line continued through her. But speaking of Offa, coins were issued in the name of his wife Cynethryth, so although we know nothing of her parents, she must have been important in her own right. Æthelflæd was called "Lady" rather than "Queen" of the Mercians, precisely because of (your) Queen Eadburh's extremely unsavoury reputation. Although the Wikipedia article on him asserts that Æthelred Mucil "ruled" Mercia "shortly after the death of its last king, Ceolwulf II in 879", it's clear that he had no hereditary entitlement to rule other than through his wife Eadburh II (otherwise their marriage would have been incestuous). Zoetropo (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, an 11th century genealogy of the family of Count Eudon of Brittany (Odo, Count of Penthièvre), constructed by his rival the Count of Anjou, claimed that his (significantly younger) wife Orguen ("Agnes") of Kernev was a maternal grand-daughter of Melisende of Maine, sister of Count Hugh III of Maine (who, the historian Keats-Rohan thinks, married a sister of Duke Geoffrey I of Brittany, Eudon's father). A genealogy (with at least one doubtful descent) for Count Hugh III provides him and his sister with a long matrilineal descent from Queens of Mercia, so, for what it's worth, someone thought this important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoetropo (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply "Pound Sterling" the official currency of Mercia? edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The "Pound" in it's various forms does indeed go back to Roman times, but the way it was stated so casually in the infobox, it gave the impression that the "Pound Sterling" (as currently defined) was the official currency of Mercia. That's the silly part. To remedy the silly part, the subject needs to be removed from the infobox and explained in real words in the text as to what was intended by the words in the infobox. I imagine it would be something probably along the lines of "The (then-version of the Pound) was one form of money used at the time in the kingdom of Mercia, other money also used was X". Of course, that entry would be subject to notability requirements as well (which it would propably have considering the existing level of detail in the article). Most importantly too, it would require a reliable reference.

The entry in the infobox conveyed a meaning probably not intended and also lacked a solid ref supporting either meaning (the one intended or the silly one expressed). That's why I removed it. According to WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". That is, it may not be reinstated (in it's previous form) without a reliable ref which actually mentions Mercia and actually supports the actual meaning expressed in the actual words in the text. 100.0.124.147 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Check Stenton, and Google pound sterling and Offa, for literally hundreds of references. Don't remove unless you get a consensus to do so. TharkunColl (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply I do not think it is correct that the pound was the currency. The BBC source cited says "pounds and shillings were merely useful units of account." Stenton p. 223 says "From the reign of Offa to that of Henry III the English currency was based on a silver penny..." The article on coinage in the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says "The gold shilling was superseded c.675 by the silver penny which was to remain the principal denomination until the mid-fourteenth century. The concept of an offical currency in this period is probably anachronistic, but it certainly was not the pound. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply TharkunColl, please review WP:burden (the first non-lede paragraph). If it's you who want's to re-list a removed purported fact, then it's your burden to provide the proper ref., not mine. As things stand now, you're fighting the wrong battle. You should instead be looking for a good ref, or better yet rewriting the entry (with ref. of course) so it doesn't convey the wrong idea. In the mean time, the disputed entry must remain not included. 100.0.124.147 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dudley, a unit of account is a currency. That's the whole point of it. TharkunColl (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

But that's not what's communicated by the actual text in dispute. If you mean to say that, then say that in a way that is clear, not by way of the ambiguous disputed text. 100.0.124.147 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous IP, I've added another reference. How many do you want? TharkunColl (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply You know darned well it's not about me or "what I want", don't play stupid head games. It's about WP:verifiability and unambiguous wording. 100.0.124.147 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply TharkunColl The Cambridge Online Dictionary at [7] defines currency as "the money that is used in a particular country at a particular time". In the later Anglo-Saxon period that would the silver penny (contrary to my previous comment that currency in this period is anachronistic). Also the first reference says pounds and shillings, not pounds only, and the second is a commercial site which is not WP:RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Guys, I went ahead and made a stub of an entry into the text as the new section "Origin of the British Pound". If someone really really wants an entry in the infobox, it should be revised from the original to be unambiguous and to reflect ref'd material in the text. 100.0.124.147 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed in the loan website ref that it wasn't until 1158, that "a change was made so that pennies were cast from 92.5 percent silver", now called sterling silver. So, a "Pound Sterling" (even by another name) could not have been associated with Mercia as the alloy didn't come into play until after Mercia ended. 100.0.124.147 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply Mention of organisations that fail WP:UNDUE edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Several organisations mentioned in this article appear to be small groups that are self-referenced. I removed two last night intending to go back today to look at the others, but I was reverted twice by the editor who added them in the first place.[8]. I think all of these are basically promotional and don't belong. I don't oppose putting any with articles into See also however. Full disclosure of my perspective - any that fail WP:ORG should go to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Missed the latest edit, which made some changes and added a source for the purpose of Sovereign Mercia, but I think makes my point as the books only mention is this name states that "There is also a website dedicated to the creation of a sovereign state of Mercia (Sovereign Mercia website)." The existence of a website doesn't warrant its mention here. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply Flags again edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I understand that the Mercian saltire is an anachronism but if we are going to use it we should at least make sure it is the right colour. See http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/event/st-albans-day/ and https://britishcountyflags.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/insert-image-9-tam-castle-2.jpg?w=640 I would change it but I don't know how to edit .svg files Cdh1984 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply I propose https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Alban%27s_cross_(corrected_blue).svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Mercie_(corrected_blue).png for darker shade of blue as seen here http://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/Talks-held-Tamworth-joining-massive-Greater/story-26628582-detail/story.html and http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/8939/Britain_As_It_Was_Devided_in_the_tyme_of_the_EnglisheSaxons_especially/Speed.html Cdh1984 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply I have been discussing the is with another user here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TharkunColl#St._Albans_Cross who has reverted my edits. I would be interested in having some input from other users. Thanks. Cdh1984 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply The difference seems minimal to me, so I'm not sure why any change is needed, and the explanation given here seems good to me; computer displays vary, as do their settings; and I wonder if you've seen this, I think it's fascinating! And maybe relevant... Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply Thank you for the input. Part of the reason that the difference is minimal is that I have tried to establish a compromise. I have also seen the version of the flag flying above Tamworth castle. Whilst TharkunColl is right that it is not as dark as the Flag Institute version it is certainly much closer to medium blue than the version used on wikipedia, which I perceive as a jarringly different shade. I understand, however, that we all see colours differently, especially online. I also think these different definitions of azure may be playing a part in the confusion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_(color) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azure_(heraldry). But, anyway, I have said my piece. Cdh1984 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdh1984 (talk • contribs)

Mercia Morris edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Why was Mercia Morris deleted from the "Modern Uses of the Term Mercia" subsection of the article as part of the 21.50 15 May 2015 edit? Snoobysoo (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply You mean in this edit? Presumably because of WP:UNDUE. There was a bit of back-and-forth about the issue in this article at the time – check the changes and edit summaries from the first to the last edits in this diff. My own feeling would be that something like Mercia Morris also falls under WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TRIVIA. But that's just me. Nortonius (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was in that edit and no reason was given there for its removal. I take your points above, but there are two other relevant factors here:

1. The section heading says 'Modern Uses of the Term Mercia'. Mercia Morris is a modern use of the term, so it clearly qualifies under that specifically-worded heading.

2. In the same edit by the Sovereign Mercia page creator, Mercia Morris was removed from the article without any explanation, whilst Sovereign Mercia was reinstated as a result of putting up a single independent reference, which, as has been pointed out, was simply a book reference to the fact that it has a website. However, Mercia Morris was deleted from the article despite having several clear independent references. The current position is therefore inconsistent.

Looking forward to reading your feedback. Snoobysoo (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply I've had another look at the section, and tidied it up a bit. Regarding your first point, section headings don't take precedence over policy. Regarding your second point, and for now, I think Mercia Morris is probably best covered by the sentence "Telephone directories across the Midlands include a large number of commercial and voluntary organisations using "Mercia" in their names." The thing is, as I see it, a difference with Sovereign Mercia is that it does have a Wikipedia article of its own and, whether we like it or not, it is mentioned in what looks to be a reliable source, i.e. that book. I think Sovereign Mercia barely merits such attention and I'm not trying to justify it – the sources listed in its WP article look mostly dubious apart from the book – but that's just my opinion. If Mercia Morris meets, or ever meets, a similar level of notability, then of course it can be considered for inclusion. For example, I just made a Google search for "Mercia Morris" and found nothing of any value – the "news" sites that were listed are little more than blogs. But, in the history of this article, I found this now-deleted reference: "Express & Star, 11. 9. 2014, page 19." The Express & Star is a better source, but that reference is inadequate – it's lacking an author (if one is named) and a title for the article – and I couldn't find the article online. If you can track that information down it would be helpful – especially if it's online. It's not a requirement that sources be online, it's just that, under the circumstances, it would help justify the inclusion of Mercia Morris. HTH Nortonius (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.Snoobysoo (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the above comments, as Sovereign Mercia was reinstated under the "Modern Uses of the Term Mercia" section because it has a Wikipedia article of its own, it seems the same should apply to The Acting Witan of Mercia, which also has its own Wikipedia article and was similarly originally removed, but remains absent. Therefore can this be reinstated? ~~Snoobysoo~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoobysoo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Snoobysoo, looking at the article's history again in this regard, reference to the Acting Witan of Mercia was removed quite reasonably in this edit because it did not have an adequate reference. However it only took me a moment to find a better one, so I've restored it with this edit. I should say though that I'm no more supportive of the Acting Witan's presence here than I am of Sovereign Mercia's, as I indicated previously: I'm just trying to be helpful and an honest broker here. I'm not at all sure that those organisations would survive in this article if someone were to take it through the Featured Article process. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Nortonius. It's clear from your actions and comments that you have acted helpfully and as an honest broker and I thank you for that. Snoobysoo (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply The English Pound edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The English pound originated in the 760s in the Kingdom of Mercia when King Offa introduced the silver penny into the coinage of the time.[21]"

This link is one to a firm offering loans at 140%. It should probably be removed!

Dantes Warden (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply External links modified (January 2018) edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126130741/http://full-time.thefa.com/Index.do?divisionseason=448491932 to http://full-time.thefa.com/Index.do?league=287177213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply Who he? edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

'In 1908 Sir Oliver Lodge, Principal of Birmingham University, wrote to his counterpart at Bristol'. Who was that counterpart? 31.52.255.62 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Regional government edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What is the justification for having that section in this article? I don't doubt that it's accurate, but why have it in this article about Mercia, when there is no governmental recognition of Mercia as an administrative area now? We have articles on the English Midlands, West Midlands, East Midlands, etc. - the detailed administrative arrangements should be (and are) within those articles, not this one. I propose that the entire "Regional government" section should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I cannot see how that section is relevant to this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to make it as concise as possible, but have no particular objection to the proposal. TharkunColl (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK - I've removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply Requested move 11 February 2021 edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

---

• Mercia → Kingdom of Mercia
• Wessex → Kingdom of Wessex

– An argument can be made for moving both pages according to WP:TITLECON, since all the other articles about the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy follow the pattern "Kingdom of X", including Kingdom of East Anglia, Kingdom of Essex, Kingdom of Kent, Kingdom of Northumbria (Kingdom of Lindsey), and Kingdom of Sussex. The majority of articles about ancient and former kingdoms also follow the same pattern such as Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Asturias, Kingdom of León, Kingdom of Castile, etc. (view Category:Former kingdoms for the full list). Keivan.f^Talk 21:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The difference between these two articles and the other ones cited as examples (with the exception of Northumbria) is that those other articles require the natural disambiguation of "Kingdom of..." because other articles are the primary. Kingdom of Northumbria should be moved to Northumbria. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• That argument could also be valid, yet having three words in the article’s title is not necessarily against WP:CONCISE; it’s longer than a single word obviously, but it’s not unreasonably long either. And if there’s an established format why not just follow it? If we create an exception here, then almost all of the pages on Category:Former kingdoms will need to be examined as well. Keivan.f^Talk 07:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply Well also per Wikipedia:Disambiguation we only disambiguate a title when necessary, and not when there is a primary topic, like in these cases. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Rreagan007: Then per Wikipedia:Disambiguation at least the page on Wessex needs to be moved, because as Vpab15 said the term is in use today and refers to an actual area in England. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Only if the kingdom is not the primary topic for "Wessex". Looking over the disambig page, the kingdom certainly seems to be the primary topic for "Wessex" to me. Are you arguing that the kingdom is not the primary topic? If so, then you should also be proposing that Wessex (disambiguation) be moved to Wessex. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply Oppose This is unnecessary disambiguation. The reason the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms are at those titles is for disambiguation purposes, which per Rreagan007 does not apply in these cases. CMD (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply @Chipmunkdavis: I guess it is not unnecessary if the terms are still in use today, and as another user mentioned it seems that they are being used. The articles themselves happen to have info on the words’ modern usage, and Wessex still refers to an area in England, which at this point is not a kingdom! Keivan.f^Talk 01:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply If there were different articles the primary topic would have to be assessed, but that isn't the case right now. CMD (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• That is definitely the case right now. This is very clear for Wessex. There is Wessex culture, referring to the Bronze age and not to the Saxon kingdom. Also, Thomas Hardy's Wessex, which is probably the primary topic in literature. There are other articles in Wessex (disambiguation). The fact that there is no separate article to refer to the region, like in East Anglia doesn't mean the term is not used today, as mentioned in Wessex#Cultural_and_political_identity_in_modern_times. Vpab15 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• If you feel another topic in Wessex (disambiguation) is the primary topic for "Wessex", that is a different argument (the proposed move is based on consistency and thus would presumably leave the redirects in place). As you note there is no article for a modern region to be considered, and there is only a single source in the section you mention. CMD (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Wessex is a term widely used today to refer to an area of South England. For example, it is one of the areas in Crown Prosecution Service (see article itself or link), National Health Service and more. So it should be moved to the natural disambiguation Kingdom of Wessex. Same with Mercia, it is still used today, even if not as much. We have West Mercia Police, and it is also used in news reports (see news results for "Mercian region" query). Vpab15 (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
• The articles themselves have a section about modern use, Wessex#Cultural_and_political_identity_in_modern_times, Mercia#Modern_uses_of_the_name_Mercia. The term Wessex seems to be more widely used, but both terms are still in use today. Vpab15 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. There is nothing wrong with the current title. It is the usual name, not Kingdom of Mercia. As other editors have said, it is only necessary to have the longer form where the short one creates ambiguity. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply Oppose. Primary topic. Srnec (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. What are the two other Anglic kingdoms? edit
  Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"was one of the three notable Anglic kingdoms " kinda makes you want to know the others. The number of kingdoms was quite fluid at this time, as the Heptarchy article describes.

I think "was one of the three notable Anglic kingdoms, along with East Anglia and XXX " would be superior. Dhalamh (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

East Anglia and Northumbria. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply