Talk:Queen Marcia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen Marcia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts Low‑importance

	Queen Marcia is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Hi, just a note that I've removed this article from "British queen consorts" for a couple of reasons.

The sources I've found indicate that this is an article about a mythical queen of England, not a verifiable consort of a legitimate king. See King of the Britons: "Most modern historians consider the Kings of Briton to be genealogical and historical myths with no solid basis in fact," and "...it is obvious that Geoffrey [of Monmouth's] version of history is quite at odds with other versions." [1]. If there is other material besides Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, by all means, please cite it.

Secondly, the inclusion sticks out like a sore thumb in the list of "British" (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) consorts. While Marcia was a Briton, that doesn't mean she was "British" in latter, post-Queen Anne, sense. Queen Gwendolen, for one, is not in the category. Same with Guinevere (who is listed as a queen consort). This is a lesser rationale than the fact that she is mythical, but it was the first thing I noticed. I suggest if we do decide to include mythical consorts, which is not the case now, we list all known Briton queens. Until then, perhaps "queen consort" would be a more fitting category. --Marysunshine 03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great points! I've got to run and I'll read this again when I have more time to concentrate. I made some edits based on similar comments to Sisillius II‎. I think I'm getting closer - but hear that "Briton" and "British need to change - oh, to "England". I'll come back to this. Any thoughts about the recent edits + making the change to England? Will we be good then? --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get your points about the categories! Makes tons of sense!

I'm trying to figure out if the terminology within the article needs to change. My understanding of the use of terminology pretty much matches what I thought, but British Isles, Great Britain, UK, British, etc. are definitely not a strongest suit. I think use of Britain and Briton within the article are correct - but again I'm a bit out of my element on this, especially as the understanding of those terms and borders might have changed throughout history.

Can someone weigh in whether any changes needed to the article? Thanks so much!

Then I'm happy to tackle other articles within this chain of articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]