Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

WP History of Scandinavia (2005-2008) Apr 2007 – Dec 2007 Jan 2008 – Jul 2008 Signpost Interview (Aug 2008) Aug 2008 – Dec 2008 Jan 2009 – Sep 2017

One question to decide on early on is, to what extent will this Wikiproject focus on the Anglo-Saxon peoples? They are closely related to the Norsemen, worshipped (before Christianization) the same gods, celebrated the same holidays, spoke a mutually-intelligible language, and in large part came from the same geographic region. Plus a lot of the literature shares common characters and themes (Beowulf/Hrolf Kraki). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps until the Battle of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings. Those are traditionally seen by historians as the end of the Viking era in England, and the shift of Norse influence into Norman influence on the Anglo-Saxons. --Grimhelm 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Angles were mainly from Jutland (and likely southern Sweden, at least Philip Dixon puts to this in his 'Barbarian Europe')and obviously make up a large percentage of Danes (Danes are newer, named after King Dan formed from numerous tribes around southern Sweden and Jutland) so I would say yes. I agree with Grimhelm we should focus on the English people until 1066, even if the English were (and correctly still are) Anglo-Saxons. King Óðinn The Aesir 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I find myself facing an interesting dilemma here: I have an examen artium from a Norwegian high school, worked for a year at a Norwegian ethnological museum Hedmark Museum, and have lots of interest in this area; yet, I'm not sure how we should structure this body of knowledge for purposes of editing (to-do lists) and reading (navigation templates, etc.). But I'll throw out some ideas as a strawman, and don't be shy about shooting them down:

• History, i.e., events that are documented in historical times
  • Events, such as battles, unions, etc.
  • Personalities, such as kings, earls, chieftans, etc.
• Ethnology and archeology
• Political geography, tied in with history
• Literature, especially sagas
• Language and linguistics
• Mythology (?)
• Religious history

--Leifern 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a logical division. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We should probably coordinate somehow with the folks who run this portal. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that portal existed. King Óðinn The Aesir 19:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been maintaining this portal for a few weeks now, trying to get it up and running. I've put in a few hours, but it has a long, long way to go. I am also currently trying to drum up interest in an Ancient Germanic culture taskforce or project. If anyone is interested, please let me or someone from Project European History know. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is now a proposed task force of this project to deal with the Ancient Germanic peoples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Ancient Germanic peoples. Anyone interested in potentially working in that group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. Aryaman (☼) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You have done impressive work and you have all my moral support. Unfortunately, I already have too many articles on my to-do list.--Berig (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm involved with Wikiproject Birds getting Common Raven up toward (hopefully) an FA. Was wondering if anyone had any references for Huginn and Munnin in Norse mythology to slot into the bottom of the Common Raven article? Much appreciated in advance. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hugin and Munin article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugin_and_Munin), while not being as detailed as I would like) as information about them. You should describe them in brief and add a link to that article. I will try to find some reliable links and sources also.King Óðinn The Aesir 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for the sources; thanks for helping out. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Clicking my way around Legendary Danish kings, I noticed a lack of consistency between the list presented there and the linked list of boxes at the bottom of each article.

For example, in the list at Legendary Danish kings, I see this succession:

• Haldanus I
• Ro
• Helgo
• Rolvo Krake
• Høtherus

...while the linked list starting at Halfdan (Haldanus I) says:

• Haldanus I
• Helgi or Heorogar
• Hrólfr Kraki (if you follow the link through Halga).
• "No two sources agree"

Now, I understand that there are different sources with different opinions and all that, but I think a particular linked list should match exactly one and only one listed sequence. If different sources disagree, I think that should be reflected by splitting the box in two, e.g. the box in Hrólfr Kraki could look like this:

Also, the titles of the link boxes differs between "Saxo's kings of Denmark" and "Legendary Danish kings". I think each linked list should show one official source, with the title of the box referring to the source. That way, it would all be consistent. (This is also how it seems to be done with all the official Danish kings, as listed in List of Danish monarchs.)

I wouldn't mind making such changes, but I don't know enough about the topic to find the official sources.

Does anybody have any opinions about this? Can anyone point me to other lists than Saxo's?

Sverre 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave this some consideration when I made the succession boxes, but I was too lazy at the time to work out a solution such as yours. It sounds like a good idea, and since I have the source material necessary to fix it, I guess I'll do it later today :).--Berig 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. There is an additional problem here which more or less made me give up when I made the succession boxes. In Sweden, there could only be one Swedish king, since the office was by definition tied to Uppsala öd and the temple at Uppsala. If Sweden split up there would be a king of Södermanland, a king of Närke and so forth, but not more than one Swedish king, which makes succession boxes quite easy. In Denmark on the other hand there were several Danish kings anytime Denmark split up in Funen, Zealand and Skåne. This means that after Hrólfr Kraki we have to divide the Danish kings into the one that ruled Zealand and the one who ruled Skåne. Since Saxo has one version of how Denmark split up, and Icelandic sources have a different version with other names, it easily becomes a succession box mess.--Berig 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. I understand that it could turn into a mess. I do see that in other topics, some people have many succession boxes attached to them, showing all the different titles they held, and how those titles were inherited. I guess it would be possible to do the same here, especially if Saxo's splitting had different names than the Icelandic sources. Obviously, I don't have the full answer on how to do it, I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies of today's boxes... Sverre 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will probably give it a go in a while. I will have to think about it first, and it will probably be something like the solutions I made for Ivar Vidfamne and Sigurd Ring.--Berig 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Eric of Good Harvests should be moved to Eirik Arsale or possibly Erik Årsäll! Or not!! Discuss! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit right out that I'm no historian, linguist or expert of any sort, but it seems to me that linguistic parallels could very well be drawn between Idunn, the goddess with the garden of apples of life, and Eden, the garden with tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It just doesn't seem far fetched, especially with other extant parallels such as the goddess Hel and the underworld Hell (although that could be a Hades/Hades thing...). Am I way off or does this sound good? RussellDLM 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)RussellDLM

Sverre of Norway has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Savidan 06:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Greenland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Does anyone know of a website or some other resource that would have either (a) hard and fast rules for giving the possessive form of Old Norse names or (b) a list of Old Norse names and their possessive forms? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the timeline links to Early Swedish history and Modern Sweden, but not the corresponding articles for the other Nordic countries? To me it looks like a very severe case of bias. Sakkura 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The timeline was made especially for Swedish history before this project was created, and no one has bothered making a new timeline for all of Scandinavia.--Berig 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not against the idea which may be a good one, but I see this project mainly as a meeting place for people who are interested in the subject.--Berig 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Creating a meeting-place with more synergy effects is exactly my scope. For example, the reasons why the featured articles in wikipedia are dominated by military history is the synergy effect of a large working project. Wandalstouring 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason "featured articles in wikipedia are dominated by military history" is that the project applies their tags to articles which have little to do with military history, and which the project did nothing to create or improve. Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria? David I of Scotland? Llywelyn the Great? Tiridates I of Armenia? Et cetera, et cetera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been working in this project and it does have a constant tagging of all sorts of articles. The average quality is better than in other projects and this can not only be based on random tagging of rulers who did wage wars. However, I am not here to argue about that. Wandalstouring 10:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)