Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sigurdrifa (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 16 August 2014 (→Article request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconNorse history and culture NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

FAC

I have nominated the article Greece Runestones for FAC. Anyone interested can take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greece Runestones.--Berig (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics chart

Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible for us to do the same thing that WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons does with theirs? (i.e. the separate categories for each type, like stubs of high importance, etc.) ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Brodir of Man, Hiberno-Norse and St. Patrick's Day

I recently expanded Brodir and Ospak of Man (one my first articles in 2005) fivefold to DYK length. I just nominated the article for GA review, because I think it covers everything given in the Njál's saga account and the main differences between the two sources, although it might do with a little more coverage of the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib account.

It was suggested, however, at Template talk:Did you know that we could hold this article over for St. Patrick's Day, because of the connection to Clontarf, and maybe expand another article on a Hiberno-Norseman for the day as well. I think Sigtrygg Silkbeard (as King of Dublin with an article of only 170 words) could be easily expanded fivefold, and used in the same hook, if anyone is interested in trying to expand it.

Sigurd the Stout, which is longer at 370 words, would be harder to expand fivefold (but not impossible to expand fivefold given his role in the readily available Njál's saga, Orkneyinga saga and Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib). That could be a good one to prepare for April 23rd, the anniversary of the Battle of Clontarf. Thoughts? --Grimhelm (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Project Template

I've created a new assessment template for the project. This will allow us to have a similar table to WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which I find to be very useful. Please let me know what you think. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norse Kings of Dublin

I have recently been working on drafts of Sigtrygg Silkbeard (see draft) and Amlaíb mac Sitriuc (see draft). I am reasonably happy with how they have been coming along until now, but I have come to a major point of confusion. According to the {{Dublin Monarchs}} template, Amlaíb (Olaf) succeeded Sigtrygg (Sitric) as King of Dublin:



On this point, the sources seem to differ:

  • This source says that the aforementioned Sigtrygg Silkbeard (Sigtrygg II Olafson) died on pilgrimage in 1029, and was succeeded by Amlaíb. Amlaíb was captured that year and ransomed. He later died on pilgrimage in 1035, to be succeed by "his son" Sigtrygg Olafson (who would have been Sigtrygg III). This Sigtrygg III founded Christchurch Cathedral and died in 1042.
  • This source claims that Sigtrygg Silkbeard (Sigtrygg II), and not his grandson, ruled until 1042 and founded Christchurch. Thus neither his son nor his grandson succeeded him.
  • The Annals of the Four Masters claim that Sigtrygg went on pilgrimage in 1028. Amlaíb was captured and ransomed in 1029. He died on pilgrimage in 1034. We hear later of Sigtrygg Olafson, although it isn't specified which Olaf is his father (Amlaíb or Olaf Cuaran). This Sigtrygg died in 1042, in the same year as his daughter.
  • Christopher Winn's I Never Knew that about Ireland (2007) claims that Sigtrygg Silkbeard went on pilgrimage in 1035, and returned to found founded Christchurch in 1038. (p 42)
  • James Henthorn Todd's edition of the Cogadh Gaedhil re Gallaibh (1867) claims that King "Sitric Silkenbeard" established the bishropric of Dublin and that he gave a grant for the building of Christchurch in 1038. (p 290) This implies that he died later, in 1042.
  • The Christchurch website merely says that King "Sitruic" and the bishop of Dublin founded Christchurch around 1030, without any further information on that King.


So where does that leave us with Amlaíb? Was he King of Dublin? Were there two Sigtrygg Olafsons, a grandfather and grandson? Did Sigtrygg Silkbeard die in 1029 or 1042? If so, did he continue to rule until 1042, or did he abdicate at some point during his reign? And where does that leave us with the other Kings in the infobox chronology?

I know these questions may be somewhat esoteric, especially since the sources all give different variants of Sigtrygg/Sitric and Amlaíb/Olaf, but you can appreciate that these are major points for the articles! --Grimhelm (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think there's actually a great deal of confusion due to the repetition of names from generation to generation. According to Downham's Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland, the two Sigtryggs you refer to were the same person. He went on pilgrimage in 1028, but then returned to Dublin and reigned until 1036, when he may have left Dublin in the possession of Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, ultimately dying abroad in 1042 (this seems at ods with all of the above.) But Downham seems certain that the Sigtrygg of Clontarf fame is the same as the one who reigned in the 1030's, which seems odd given her propensity for accusing historical sources of conflating different individuals together. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be curious if two Sihtric son of Amlaibs were floating about so close to each other; pre-Norman insular naming customs generally discourage repetition of forename+patronymic combos in aristocratic circles, and if this did happen they'd generally be referred to instead by nicknames, which is not the case here. The other thing to note is that there's no obit for a Sihtric son of Amlaib before 1042; the Irish annals in this period are almost exhaustive and wouldn't have omitted the name of a guy like that. Yet another thing to note is that the "conflation" (no evidence reason to believe they are two people instead of one) has nothing to do Downham. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sihtric son of Amlaib definitely died in 1042 (Annals of Tigernach, Annals of Innisfallen, Annals of the Four Masters of Ireland). His son Amlaib (Olaf) appears to have been killed in 1013 (check the Irish annals under 1012 or 1013) by a guy named Cathal (e.g. AU 1013.8 AFM 1012.12=1013), and see notes in Downam, Viking Kings, p. 271. The date of the establishment of Christ Church is unclear. We only think it was founded by Sihtric because of a later source; however, his foundation is generally accepted. Hudson thinks Sihtric's pilgrimage in 1028 was connected with the foundation of the bishopric. The sources you are using are bad, and I don't think it's a good idea to use them at all. If you have to use these sources, then it'll be better to say nothing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing all that up! I will cull most of the non-primary internet sources from the present drafts. Of course, the only sources I listed above that I would have used would have been Todd, Winn and the annals. I have, however, got a few more paper sources confirming Sigtrygg's reign as ending in 1036, and I will try to incorporate the information from Hudson. More importantly, I will also try to get Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland as suggested asap.
With all this taken into consideration, I take it we should remove Amlaíb from the Dublin Monarchs template box. On closer inspection, the information in the box was made out by Yorkshirian, who was later banned for sockpuppeting. I will admit I have had no contact with this user previously and know nothing of him other than this, but we may want to take the entire infobox under review.
Also, it still seems there were two Amlaíbs ("Amhlaeibh, son of Sitric"): one killed in 1012, as you mention, and the one I mentioned killed in 1035. It was the latter Amlaíb I was confused about. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) There's a list of Dublin monarchs in the New History of Ireland, vol. ix, periodically visible of google books. I have the physical copy and I suppose I could do a list. In fairness to Yorkshirian, this user wasn't the most conscious of good sources. I had to spend last night fixing his King of "Jorvik" list. Unfortunately, the Hiberno-Norse stuff is very tough, and it is difficult to wander into the topic area and write good articles without knowing the reliable sources, having access to them, and of course mastering much of the material (including the context) oneself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:29, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Hrafnkels saga

I have nominated Hrafnkels saga for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huard images

[The] Giant Skrymir and Thor

I've acquired some PD images by Louis Huard. I propose to add them to various articles, if noone objects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Today's Norse image is "The Punishment of Loki", from the same book. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And today's is "Giant Suttung and the Dwarfs". I haven't nominated this one for FPC, I'm worried about flooding the page, and thus ending up stopping further images from passing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All but Suttungr are FPS; Suttungr will be nominated in a few days (FPC is in one of its slightly wonky periods again) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified painting

Can some one identify the artist of this picture? (User:Growl) 22:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.9.253 (talk) [reply]

I'm afraid I have no idea. Nice painting, though. Haukur (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is Évariste Vital Luminais' Les pirates normands au IXe siècle ("The Norman pirates of the 9th century") of 1894. It is already on Commons, but there is nothing linking to it on Wikipedia at this time. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Axe

A proposal has been made to rename/rescope the article Viking Axe on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎. As this also falls under the remit of Norse History and Culture project, input would be warmly welcomed Monstrelet (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming conventions for sovereigns

There is an ongoing discussion of how naming guidelines apply to Scandinavian sovereigns at WT:NCNT#Name-Ordinal-Country construction revisited, and this discussion has recently been moved to a subpage at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Scandinavian sovereigns. Please feel free to join in the discussion there. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page reviews

I'd like to request the community examine the modern influences section on two pages: Odin and Fenrir. Both contain OR to the extent that the presence of particular works (but not others) constitutes a claim about the notability of those works with respect to the topic of the page. As such, even if I might agree with such a claim, it needs a citation as to its notability.

I've also noticed the stance the community seems to have taken with the Thor page, and think that such a stance should be carried over to more pages (especially Odin's, but to a lesser extent used as the default practice.)

Please see the relevant talk pages. I'd especially like additional opinions regarding Fenrir because Bloodfox and I have had quite a disagreement on what suitable 'modern influences' are, and he refuses to provide sources proving notability. (The best he can do is say 'Simek lists them' - which as far as I can tell just means they exist, and some independent searching on my own has found precious little to suggest they were notable even at the time of publication).

--69.209.68.87 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sample articles by number of views

Just wondering at the way this works and if we can get a better system on the go.

188.220.215.23 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New category Category:Vinland

I was organising a few articles, and realised that there was no Category:Vinland. I created it to see what could be done, since there appears to be an clear consensus that Vinland means "medieval Viking colony in North America", and given the various arguments over its location, articles about its founders, historical points, etc. it's enough to build a cat. Support? Populate? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnsburg Fragment Translation

Is this type of article appropriate? PDCook (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comments? PDCook (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure about the policy, so I don't want to naysay, but probably not. If the translations are all sourced, I guess you should still work on it until you get a verdict. This might work for Wikisource, I don't know if they do texts with inline translations. LokiClock (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found it patrolling new pages, and I'm not familiar with the topic, so I personally won't be working on it. I considered PRODing it, but it looks like there is some useful content. I hope someone here can help the article out if it is appropriate; I think it was created by a new user. PDCook (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles!

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language, Norwegian or whatever. The Lewis chessmen would be an obvious one for this Project.
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary task - common Norse words

Figure this is the best place to put this. I've assembled a list of common Norse words. Even the very most common are lacking entries! If you have some spare time, check a few with me: wikt:User:LokiClock/Most_common_Old_Norse_words ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New series: Old Norse language

Hayden120 (talk · contribs) has started a series on the Old Norse language here: {{Old Norse topics}}. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New category: Old Norse language

Category:Old Norse language has been created. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tag

Hi guys! I just wanted to let you know that I removed the Norse culture tag from the Egtved Girl article. Even if she was blond, historians do not consider people from 1370 BC to be Norse. Thank you. Againme (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same for Proto-Germanic language. Replaced with Ancient Germanic studies tag. Againme (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the template for Egtved Girl, as the WikiProject encompasses Scandinavian history in general, including the Nordic Stone and Bronze Ages. As for Proto-Germanic, that might be a hold-over from before Proto-Norse language existed. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Possibly not the stone age. But, to quote the scope section of the project page, "The best-known time period covered by this project is the Viking Age, but the focus will also be on the less-well known Nordic Bronze Age." ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it is still missleading to anyone out of your WP who sees the tags in the talk page. --Againme (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, at least for an anthropologist. A general audience probably wouldn't be aware of the exact limits on interchangeability of the terms "Norse" and "Scandinavian." The term Nordic country is already purely geographical by inclusion of Finland. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Migration Period

I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted . I hope to attract some attention here, since I can see that the WikiProject Norse history and culture has rated the article as Top-importance . The comment is at the talk-page, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01 . Sechinsic (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cotters

Hi there. I wanted to draw everyone's attention to an important Irish family that has been neglected and is immensely lonely. They are the Cotter family and their relations and the family is definitely of some Norse extraction. I have only just discovered them and written the section on their origins. Enough people know about my people the O'Donovans but in our case we're still really Gaels, more or less. Most of the other Norse families in Ireland are extinct or nearly so. The Cotters are also a proud family of true substance and heroism which has played an important role in the region in recent centuries. Which must make it even harder out there. They have no one to belong to. You cannot imagine how isolated this region of Ireland was until only recently and it is truly, truly amazing they're still there, and in good health. Wow. DinDraithou (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found!

See my masterpiece in User_talk:Urselius#Looking_forward_to_it. DinDraithou (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progressing very well. We now have a team working and it would appear the Cotter family can be linked in a variety of manners to a Norse dynasty of jarls and occasional kings. We are fortunate in that this dynasty have recently been covered in an academic paper and called the Ottar dynasty, but this has not made it into the article yet. When it does and when we have an article for the dynasty, I hope I will remember to return here and announce it. DinDraithou (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo GA review

Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. This project is tagged on the talkpage as one that has an interest in the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork *YES! 10:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Altar Rock

I happened upon the little article Viking Altar Rock, about a landmark in Minnesota that bears on Norse colonization of the Americas#No permanent colonies. Any additional sources or interested eyes would be welcome there. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norse history and culture articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Norse history and culture articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-i or -e with personal names

I'm not sure whether this is the place to discuss this but I have noticed that some personal names (such as Tryggvi) are spelled with an -e in some articles, whereas the Old Norse spelling is definitely with an -i and most major articles such as the Snorri Sturluson and Loki articles use the normal -i spelling. I don't want to move and edit all those pages without discussion though, so could anyone here give their opinion on this subject? Cilibinarii (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That -i is in an unstressed position. See Old Norse orthography for the various spellings of unstressed /i/ in Old Norse. There is no need to move any pages or comb through them to make sure only one spelling of the sound is used. Article names tend to be in the standard normalization, with exceptions mainly consisting of quibbles over names including /ø/. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks ^^ Cilibinarii (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian diaspora

For your information, Scandinavian diaspora has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article created

I just wanted to let you know that I just created the article House of Knýtlinga. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. OKelly (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Svein, King of Norway

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Leif Ericson - need some editors to take a look at article

I just provided a GA review for this article. Its main issue is comprehensiveness. I'd like editors familiar with the subject to take a look at the article and make a good effort at expansion with an eye to having good documentation of additional references. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Infobox

There is an objection to an infobox on the Thor article if any here wish take part in the discussion. --Spshu (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a really stupid discussion. OKelly (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

I've dropped an essay into Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Origins of the Uí Ímair and the Earls of Orkney and comments/edits are more than welcome. Some of the reasons it is not (yet) an article are explained on the talk page - I also think it needs some input from those much more familiar with the relevant periods of Norse and Irish history than I am. Ben MacDui 15:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls Article - Consensus and Contributors needed

IMHO, the Troll article could use some extra contributors to expand the article and some help on a few issues that require the consensus of more than a few people. I am one contributor, though I am still learning a lot at this point, and although I'm a great researcher and not completely new to "trolls", I don't have access to the same resources that some of you in this wikiproject might. We also have one well versed wikipedian in on the conversation, though it would be nice to have a larger consensus. Anyone up for contributing to the noble art of studying Trolls? =) --Bema Self (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tjurkö bracteates

Could someone with some knowledge of this subject put this on their watchlist please? Anon ip(s) have recently taken an interest in adding uncited material and translations and it is a subject about which I know little. Many thanks, Ben MacDui 09:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems w/page Harald Bluetooth

Current content of this page presents dubious information on wives and the maternity of his children. At odds with FMG/Cawley, as well as (seemingly) Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian WP. Assistance would be appreciated. Please see this discussion. Thanks! --Jrm03063 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Váli articles

I'm posting this here because I don't see any activity over at Norse mythology. On 10 July 2012, merging of Váli (which is on Váli (son of Odin), which redirects there) into Váli (son of Loki) was proposed. No reason was given, and the only discussion at the target talk page (or the originating talkpage) was my opinion rejecting the suggestion, posted on 14 August 2012. Nonetheless, someone else performed the merger today. I have reverted it; submitting my actions and argument to the group for discussion. (I have also left a note at the talkpage of the editor who performed the merger.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Norman conquest of southern Italy

Hi all, I started a discussion on the Norman conquest of southern Italy article in regards to the introductory paragraph. If anyone wants to provide input they are more than welcome. Cheers, — - dain- talk    23:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of patronymics

An editor has requested comment at WT:MOS, which may affect the way some biographical articles within the scope of this Wikiproject are styled. The discussion is at WT:MOS#Translation of patronymics. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heathobards & Hedeby

Is there a connection between Hedeby (Haithabu) and Beowulf's Heathobards? Neither of the articles mention the possibilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.146.5 (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amon Amarth and Viking metal

Editors and IPs continue to go back and forth over whether or not Amon Amarth play Viking metal. Please join the discussion at Talk:Amon Amarth#Consensus on Viking Metal or not. Please keep discussion there, not here. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia

I noticed that WP:WikiProject History of Scandinavia redirects to WP:WikiProject European history and so does WP:WikiProject Scandinavia. Shouldn't WP:Scandinavia redirect to WP:Europe, and perhaps WP:HistOfScandinavia redirect here? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guðrún

The usage of Guðrún/Gudrun is under discussion, see talk:Guðrún -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template pic

I realised this project had been using the raven banner as the template image, and that has been deleted, so I'm letting you know that I replaced it with a viking ship prow. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Norse Mythology Articles Are No Longer Encyclopedic

I am not one to comment on Wikipedia and am certainly not qualified to edit articles on Norse Mythology. There is a problem I have noticed with all that I have so far ran across and all of them on your good articles list. While they are well sourced and written in a scholarly tone they no longer actually provide encyclopedic information about what they are talking about. They all essentially follow a format of etymology(not in all of them), attestations, then archeological evidence and modern theories about the topic. What they are lacking is a description. No one reads an encyclopedia simply to find out where what they are looking up is attested. I know that it is hard to write in a scholarly and authoritative tone that is non-controversial about a mythology that was orally transmitted 1000 years ago but if no attempt is made at all the article simply not about its purported subject. There could be a differing approach of interpretation narrative, the facts about the event/god/mythological-entity/mythological-place could be presented as being from the different attestation but some set of facts must be represented. I came to the Norse section because it has been years since I have had courses or read anything dealing with it and I forgot some of the distinctions between the vanir and the aesir and who the main host of the enemy the gods fight during Ragnarok where. You cannot actually find any of that information from the norse section of wikipedia. You can't even find basic descriptions of some of the major deities or Valhalla just various details about their attestations and etymologies. The worst thing of it is is that some of the articles go in depth about modern non-consensus theories about the origins of various myths but not a single one dares gives even a fairly mainstream theory of what the myths include. Conetent wise all of these articles stop being directly about their subject right before the table of contents. They are the most amazingly sourced, long, and well written stubs on wikipedia. 76.95.209.36 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)sandy[reply]

I am not sure what you are looking for exactly. Can you provide some examples? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You sound qualified to me. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First I am definitely not qualified as I have only the most basic recollection of Norse Mythology which is why I was looking it up in the first place... Okay as to examples. Let's take the Ragnorok page as a paradigm as it is true with the others I have looked at. Looking at the information on that page try and answer the question what is Ragnorok and not where it is attested. Try and answer some basic facts about Ragnorok such as basic facts about the battle. I first looked up that page because I forgot other than loki and the great serpent what the main body of the enemy the gods and people who died in battle are supposed to fight. Furthermore I realized it essentially contains little to know pertinent information as to what Ragnorok is beyond the first summary lines above the table of contents. I thought the attestation section would provide the information and it doesn't seem to though I must admit its hard to keep my eyes glossing over when it is taking painstaking steps to ensure that the proper page numbers are cited when I am looking for basic facts about Ragnorok. That is to say not simply that it is the Norse end of the world but a brief description or summary of some kind of what scholars generally accept to be its key events. Now turning from Ragnorok to the other articles they all follow the same format of leaving out the description of the thing in question. The Valhalla one happens to be slightly better as in parts of its attestation section someone has undertaken to present some of the characteristics of Valhalla as presented from the sources, but it still is unclear if it is a good description of the place. Essentially you need a new section something like "In myth" to describe what the significance of these things are in mythology. This is true of the various gods and groups of gods as well. For example other than the initial summary that the Vanir are fertility gods no attempt is made to describe the significance of the difference between them and the Aesir in the mythology. It doesn't even make a real effort to describe which gods they were. It does link to where they live, but that article has the same problems as the rest and doesn't actually say anything about the place they live just that it is attested. The only place that any attempt is made to go into the vanir's characteristics is in the modern theories section when it is just going into somewhat controversial, i.e. matters of ongoing matters of academic debate not generally excepted fact by most experts, about their origins as the gods of a competing tribe or general European earth mother gods replaced by invading Indo-European war gods. That is not a description of the Vanir and as I am highly skeptical of the Indo-European invasion due to lack of evidence for a sweeping conquest, the fact that Indo-European language groups seem to have evolved in siteu, and the mother goddess theory seems to be based on one woman's interpretation of female figurines and undecipherable pictographs. I do not fault that explanation is there as it is a popular one. What I am saying is that on all the articles the only real 'facts' about the gods presented is either they are from a mother earth pre-germanic Scandinavian or that they are derived from some theoretical Proto-Indo-European god. I do not think wikipedia is the forum to debate the validity of these arguments or that they shouldn't be included I am simply saying they are not a description of a mythological being. It does not suffice to make your encyclopedia a proof that the thing existed then modern theories about why it exists, how it came to exist, or modern influences it has (though those can be included). An encylopedic article is not an epistemic proof of the subjects existence, it is a basic ontological description of the subject. If you wish I can provide examples from all the "good" articles on this page about the mythology and even more that aren't as they all have the same flaw. It's like if the article on Zeus simply said he was the Greek god of thunder and leader of the Greek pantheon that lived on Olympus and said nothing more about him, but provided 10 pages worth of description as to where he was cited in the Greek and Roman literature and the article was considered good by the Greek Mythology project. Another might be if the article on the electron simply said it was a subatomic particle with negative charge and then proceeded to have 100 pages of citations of different scientific articles describing its properties. 76.95.209.36 (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC) sandy[reply]
Please format your comments. Walls of text are no joy to read.
That said, have you spent any time with those attestations sections? They outline exactly what is said where and in what context. This is what you will find in academic handbooks on the topic and this is how this material is presented here. It sounds to me like what you are looking for is not what the corpus offers.
If you're looking for straightforward narratives, I recommend that you either pick up a copy of Faulkes's Prose Edda translation (simply titled Edda) or, more straightforward yet, Kevin Crossley-Holland's modern retellings. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you have some very specific ideas on how the articles should be improved, together with a reference point for article quality, and since you've taken a course in the subject you have an idea of the priority of information to be included. If you had sources to remind you of this information, you would be able to add those must-haves as you refreshed from the source. The qualifications of the sources of the information are more important than your qualifications - Wikipedia does not synthesize information to form new theses. As you get used to editing, you'll probably notice many drastic errors in what you wrote at first, and the article will be improved when you notice that. If you don't know what you're doing in the first place, an expert will read it and think it's wrong, and they'll revert it or leave two sentences for every paragraph. Then you can bug them about it and find out why you're wrong. This is called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Wikipedia gets less wrong by having expert supervision, but it doesn't get full coverage by waiting for the expert. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAR Rus' Khaganate

I have initiated an FA review for the article, the review page is open for discussions on how to improve the article to bring it back to it's FA status, or for it to be reclassified. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to modify usage in spelling Old Norse

I have proposed modifying usage in articles - and possibly article titles too on topics in Old Norse literature and mythology - as outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) by ending the exception for the character ǫ (o-ogonek). I've started a section to discuss this at the talk page for the relevant guideline, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Norse mythology)#Revisiting o-ogonek. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree for the article Folkung

Id be happy for comments regarding my first dummy: Dan Koehl (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a family tree intended for the article Folkung, showing the Folkungars family relationship which each other, and their enemy, king Erik Eriksson]], and his jarl Birger jarl, as well as Birgers grandson Magnus Ladulås. The last three, becoming the royal line, in green background.

Persons marked as red color, were either fled the country, were killed in battles, or became decaputed by the ruler.

The family tree is thought to be combined with a numbered list of documented, true Folkungar, see below the tree.

Folke »grossus»Erik den helige
{{{[}}}
Bengt Snivil (ref. Saxo)Knut (ref. Saxo)Filip ErikssonKnut Eriksson
Karl Döve
d. 1220 i Estland		Birger Brosa
d. 1202		Holmger FilipssonMagnus Minnesköld
d. 1208/1210		Erik Knutsson
d. 1216
{{{u}}}{{{#}}}{{{[}}}
3. Ulf Fase
d. 1247 e. 1248		Knut jarl
d. 1208		1. Folke jarl
d 1210		Filip jarl
d. 1200 i Norge.		2.Canute II of Sweden
d. 1234		Katarina EriksdotterIngeborg Eriksdotter
g.m. Birger jarl
9.Philip Knutsson
d. 1260		Magnus BrokaCecilia KnutsdotterFilip Birgersson(Katarina?)
Filipsdotter		4. Holmger Knutsson
d. 1248 och bror:
6. Philip Knutsson d. 1251		8. Filip Petersson
d. 1251		Magnus Ladulås
(ca 1240-1290)
7. Knut Magnusson
d 1251		10. Birger Filipsson
d. 1280		11. Johan Filipsson
d. 1280		Ingegärd Filipsdotter g.m.
Karl Tjälfvesson of Fånö		5. Filip Larsson
d efter 1247		möjlig dotter till
Filip Petersson
g.m.Finvid
12. Johan Karlsson
d. 1280		Karlsdotter
till Johan		13. Filip of Rumby

1210, Battle of Gestilren

1229, slaget vid Olustra

1247, slaget vid Sparrätra

1251, slaget vid vid Herrevadsbro

The folkungar Started an uproar after Valdemar Birgerssons election to king 1250

1278-1280, (the "Filipssönernas uppror")

According to Erikskrönikan the uproar started due to king Magnus Ladulås favouring of foreign men, especially the danish knight Ingemar Nielsen, who married his relative. [1]

I do work on a second variety for the tree, located at [my swedish sandbox, its not as complete, but gives you an idea of an alternative graphical symmetry of the relationships. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Help is needed at the dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN) in a a dispute King Charles IX of Sweden (1550 – 1611) and our articles at Kvenland and King of Kvenland. The dispute is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Kvenland, and like all Wikipedia pages, anyone is free to comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article request

This is just to let others know I am working on the article about Þórarinn Ragabroðir Óleifsson. Sigurdrífatalk) 11:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Erikskrönikan 1993, p. 61
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture&oldid=621479803"