Talk:Werburgh

Date of death

Inconsistency here - lead sentence says 699, info box says 597 ......  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Category says 699 too, and the Catholic Encyclopedia also says 699. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed infobox dates to conform with text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

English?

Are we right to call Werburgh English? The Kingdom of England hadn't formed for another few centries. Wasn't she Mercian instead? See also WP:UKNATIONALS --Jza84 |  Talk  12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says she's an English saint, and that's fair enough. Saying she was born in Staffs, which I never noticed before, and which didn't exist until the 10th century, is a bit weird though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly amended. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed England as a location from the infobox as an anachronism. I still think "Saxon saint" or equivalent might be more appropriate, but whatever you guys think - I'll trust. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Werburgh was not a `Saxon' because Mercia was a kingdom of the Angles,who later gave their name to England (from Angle-Land). She was English by any definition of the word. Italian artists pre-dating Italian unification in 1861 are correctly called Italian, even if they lived in Kingdom of the Twwo Sicilies, the Papal States, the Duchy of Modena, the republic of Venice etc. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Canonisation

The article as it stands doesn't tell us why or when she was sainted. It should. Peynirli (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Weburgh.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Weburgh.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Werburghshrine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Werburghshrine.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Werburgh. Most of the Google hits (also for book search) are about related topics, like a street in Dublin, an abbey, or a poem by William Parr Greswell, but this book by Henry Chadwick looks pretty authoritative. Favonian (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Werburh → Werburgh – This is not the saint's popular name. A quick google search confirmed by suspicions....only 96,000 hits for Werburh, 960,000+ for Werburgh. 109.158.248.117 (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The article was at Werburgh until 2010 when it was moved, with no discussion either before or afterwards, in this edit. I'm minded to support moving it back, unless there is some clear WP:MOS guidance suggesting otherwise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Inclined to Support but ignorant about medieval matters. The editor who made the move (but without discussion), User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, claims to be a doctoral student in the Middle Ages. S/he hasn't edited since last September, but I've asked for a comment. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I draw your attention to this Wikipedia directive on common names. It states that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Seems that precludes any archaic spelling; which at any rate would be just included in the article, noting the original usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.46.124 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.