User talk:Berig/Archive 4 (June 27, 2007 - September 29, 2007)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, to be archived

Historia Norwegie

Yes, I have Fisher's 2003 translation. I'll gladly quote any parts you need :) Haukur 23:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert to OR invented name of Erik Årsäll

Eric of Good Harvest is not an accepted name on Erik Årsäll. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It is better than using the English form of his name with a translation of his cognomen. It is much better than a poor anglification of his name such as Eirik Arsale.--Berig 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish name Erik Årsäll is acceptable if its meaning is explained.--Berig 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's invented. It's not used, except on Wikipedia and half a dozen copycat sites. We can't invent terms, it falls under the category Original Research. According to policies, we must adher to common knowledge, terms and names from outside sources whatever we may think about them. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It the English form of his name + a translation of his cognomen, which is acceptable since there is no standard English name for the king. If you wish to move the page, please discuss it on the talkpage next time.--Berig 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden#Advice needed on kings names!!. Now, let's discuss HERE! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftain

I didn't even know that Germanic chieftain existed. I've added it to the disambig page. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Hongooi 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know your runes

Thanks for editing my misplaced runestone from Knivsta. I know a little more now thanks to you. Best regards, Frank

Raedwald of East Anglia

Hiya Berig, Hope you're having fun and the gremlins aren't getting to you! (just happy trolls... shhh.) This Raedwald article has now been much altered and revised by User:Mike Christie. I expect he will go on and do similar to the other East Anglian ones too. A pity, perhaps, that he doesn't turn his talents to rulers that have not yet been written about, but there you are. I am not going to try to force the article to say what I meant it to say, or battle over it - my version is buried in the archive and there it can stay. I hope still to keep an eye on Sutton Hoo, however, as I know you do, and let's see if we can keep that going in some respectable form for a while longer yet? otherwise I am out of ancient history on Wikipedia as (as you found, I think) there are too many pitfalls. I am happy at present writing articles about singers and pianists of 100 years ago. As the East Anglian articles change, I shall knock them off my userpage. Best wishes, I shall watch your progress with interest! Dr Steven Plunkett 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike C and I will, I think, collaborate now on an improvement to the raedwald article, which is the best way of all. I haven't really looked at them much for three months. Thanks so much for your message. I know that feeling you describe, for I wrote my PhD (completed 1984) on the Mercian and west Saxon stone-carvings, and from 1978 to 1983 I was going all over the country finding and looking at them. Last year I went back and stood in the thickness of the chancel-arch at Bradford on Avon (the little Anglo-Saxon church) facing the altar, and shut my eyes for five minutes. If I shut my eyes now my mind can still shape-forth the sense of that high and ancient space as I sensed it then, and I knew that I was not the first to do it. Individual identity almost dissolves in such shared experience. I will go and look at your runestones shortly! Very best wishes, Steven (a.k.a.) Dr Steven Plunkett 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greece runestones

This is a lovely article. I haven't read all of it yet but it is beautifully set out as usual in your work! Just a point to consider - ref the Runestone set up by Astrid for Eysteinn, bonda sinn, husband in English is the same as 'spouse' (male), i.e. the person one is married to, but 'husbandman' as you put it in the translation means something else. A husbandman is a person who looks after animals, more than a shepherd, one who manages and takes care of livestock for farming purposes, usually on a small farm or smallholding - as in the expression 'animal husbandry'. I'm sure the lovely Astridr wasn't in that category!! But I have not touched your text. Best, Dr Steven Plunkett 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMMmmm! I just looked in Oxford English Dictionary and the main meaning is 'one who tills and cultivates the soil, a farmer' - nothing to do with animals, much to my surprise, though that expression certainly exists. And yes, the overlap of sense with 'domestic economy' is definitely there. So I withdraw my infidel assertion, eat my own words and grovel apologetically... Thankyou for a lesson well learnt! The sun is coming out and I am going off to a car-boot sale or wic. Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. A text is a text, and if it is runic it is a runic text. Therefore a transliteration is already a construct, away from the original. Philologically, the use of a particular rune (especially vowels) which do not correspond to normalised spelling of the old language may be important because they suggest dialect, inflection, or even some formative element in the etymology of the word, and that should obviously be preserved. This arises with the 'Dream of the Rood' text on the Ruthwell cross. I agree with you, and would always want to give the transliteration. The trouble is you are writing the article in a modern language (doesn't matter if Germanic or Chinese), there still has to be a second level of translation, i.e. from runic to transliteration, and from transliterated text to modern. It is not as if there is anybody (except possibly Ray Page) who is a native speaker of the mediaeval language, and there is not yet a Wikipedia written in Old Norse or Old Icelandic (unfortunately!). Therefore in theory you ought to include the 'regularised' form too, because there will be cases where the variations matter. A simple formula such as '(Standard Old Troldhaug: I have broken the mind-marriage of my father (Volsunga-kvida)) - or something like that. In practice, I would trouble the wikipedia reader with it ONLY when there is a significant need to explain the spelling from the transliteration - that would be my personal choice. Dr Steven Plunkett 08:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I have made a contribution to the discussion page about the name of Erik Arsall, hope it's not too unhelpful! Best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 10:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Varangians

Cuold you please have a look at this [1], this was new to me and doesn't seem to fit with the information in varangians?? Finnrind 16:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There was an old 1930s theory from Finland that the Varangians were ethnic Finns and which keeps popping up every once in a while. I guess it is fair to remove it as per WP:FRINGE.--Berig 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note that 'Varangians' is just the way Russian chronicles refer to Vikings. Basically The Varangians or Varyags (Russian, Ukrainian : Варяги, Varyagi) were known as Vikings in the West. I think the WP articles should be updated to make this clear that this is just a linguistic issue and the same people the ship-borne warriors and traders of Norsemen (literally, men from the north) were known with different names in the West and East--Termer 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. regarding the question if there were Varangians that were 'ethnic Finns', certainly there were Varangians AKA Vikings that were 'ethnic Finns'. They were located mostly on the island of Oesel later in history migrated up North to the western parts of Finland.--Termer 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italy Runestones

Hi Berig. You are off to such a great start on the article Italy Runestones that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian pirates AKA vikings

Hello Berig, to avoid edit warring here: how come you call Scandinavian pirates from the late 8th–11th century vikings but the similar ship-borne warriors and traders of Norsemen (literally, men from the north) who originated from another side of the Baltic sea you call pirates?

As there are also referred to Estonian vikings in the article and there are sources elsewhere that refer to 'Estonian vikings' for ex 800-1100 A.D. Raids and counter-raids by Vikings around the Baltic Sea, including by Estonian Vikings. Estonians kidnap Norwegian Queen Astrid and her son, future King Olaf Trygvesson—sell them into slavery. Estonians destroy Sweden’s main town, Sigtuna. http://www.balticsww.com/tourist/estonia/history.htm

please have the article reverted to Estonian vikings instead of Estonian pirates so that your original article can't be interpreted as a racist Scandinavian POV. Thanks!--Termer 19:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Berig, Hvorfor syns du at nogen fra Finland skal taler om det for dig? Tak skal du have!--Termer 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnhild Ozursdattir

Started work on this article. If you're able and willing, I could use a hand with expansion, refs, etc. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at Gunnhild Mother of Kings. I'm not crazy about this title, but nothing else seems to fit (since the sources don't even agree on whose daughter she was). In any case, it has been greatly expanded, including references to sources id'ing her as a daughter of Gorm. Interestingly, some genealogy websites suggest that Gunnhild Ozzur's daughter and Gunnhild Gorm's daughter were two different people, both wives of Erik Bloodax, but I've found no corroboration in any scholarly sources yet. I still need to expand the "later life" section, talk about her role during the rule of Harald II etc. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you say about witchcraft/seithr is very true, but the fact is that the sagas are not matter-of-fact about Gunnhild's use of her "powers". She is almost always described in a negative light. This might well be attributed to post-conversion antipathy for pagan sorcery, but there are no sources that I'm aware of to describe her using her powers in any positive way. I would be wary of turning the article into a discourse on Scandinavian witchcraft but I do want to elaborate more on the subject. Do you recommend any sources? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Runefacts

I can maybe help out - the template really needs some restructuring, particularly to support fields not present in all articles that use it, what exactly are you trying to do? --Random832 00:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Random832 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the template. What are you doing in the articles to try to add the style? --Random832 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you add it yourself. The part calling the templates is just wikitext, just hit enter and add style=...| between the other lines. --Random832 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runestone styles

Wanted to thank you for an excellent article addition! We are not many here who are interested in rune stone articles, but I think it is a very important thing to document and your articles have added tremendous value. Thank you again! mceder (u t c) 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation :).--Berig 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cdf

Your comments would be welcome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland-Lapland

Hi Berig. In article Huld, You made the word "Finland" link to "Lapland". Lapland is now a disambiguation page, I believe it was moved to Sápmi (area). Should I link it to that article? or another? Or maybe make a note about what most likely is meant by "Finland", but that is beyond me. --Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It was Haukurth that suggested asking you, since he found linking to Finland inappropriate. The same text and link is in article Vanlandi. For now it can stay as it is. The real reason is that I'm trying to figure out what to do with this kind of disambiguation pages with unclear meaning. Thanks again. --Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus/Rus categories

I note that you removed a number of items from the Kievan Rus categories because they involved pre-Kiev Rus, such as Rus'-Byzantine War (860) and Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus. I note that certain other articles, like Rurik, don't properly belong to Kievan Rus. Might it make sense to create a new "Rus" category of which Kievan Rus will be a subset? Do you think this would cause a ruckuss? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge Berig to restore Category:Kievan Rus where it used to be present, so that we don't loose any important entries when I will return to the subject and start the appropriate category in order to hold pre-Kievan Rus pages together. The association of early anti-Byzantine campaigns with the "Vikings" is a matter of scholarly contention, but it is incontrovertible that the 860 attack was launched from Kiev and as such legitimately belongs to Category:Kievan Rus. If Berig is reluctant to follow my advice, I ask Brian to take care of the issue. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is rather anachronistic to put these articles in the category Kievan Rus', but since Ghirla expresses support for this categorization I will add them back to the date 860.--Berig 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the Vikings category (should we have Category:Varangians?), but please don't remove other categories from Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus, etc. I will contrive a better categorization scheme in due time. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I would propose is that articles like Rus' Khaganate, Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate, Rurik, Rus'-Byzantine War (860) and Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus which clearly involve the Rus' but predate the Kievan state system be recategorized to a Category:Rus (or the somewhat less specific Category:Varangians. This new category would be a subset of both the Category:East Slavic history and of the appropriate Norse category, and then the various Kievan Rus' categories would be subcategories of the new category. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an appropriate cutoff would be that articles relating to events or people relevant to the period definitely after Oleg's conquest of Kiev (whatever the specific date may have been) would go to Kievan Rus categories, whereas articles relating to items from before that conquest, or where the timing is ambiguous, would go in the more general category. But is Rus' or Varangians the appropriate designation for the general cat? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I would argue it should be Category:Rus, because Varangian is a somewhat vague term. Was Harald Hardrada a Varangian or a Viking? He raided in both Britain and in Russia. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a Category:Rus with the Bravlin article, I will go through and start moving some articles from the Kievan categories. If you think I moved something wrongly let me know or move it back. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gunnhild_Mother_of_Kings

Since you worked on this article, I thought it would interest you to know that it is up for FA status. Your comments would be most welcome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viking funeral

I have no idea how that happened. It certainly wasn't intentional on my part. I have restored the gallery. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

paranoid neopagans

thanks for talking to your compatriot, only it didn't seem to have an effect. I don't know, maybe you could impress on him in private communication that he is making a complete ass of himself? (only if you feel like it. as always, if it bothers you too much, take a step back...) dab (𒁳) 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jotnar vs. Giant article link

I agree that the inhabitants of Jotunheimr and Muspell are more specifically jotnar and not giants, but I linked them specifically to the eldjotnar and hrimthursar section of the giants article, not the giants article in general. In this sense, I was being more specific, not less. Plus, I believe that that section of the article links to the jotnar article, whereas the jotnar article does not mention eldjotnar or hrimthursar by name. Lars951 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardariki runestones

Sorry, somehow your post on my page slipped beneath my radar (possibly because you subsequently posted a different comment that showed up on the diff)

Have you made progress with this? I would like to help to the extent I'm able. I think "Varangian runestones" might work well (as I understand it Austrvegr might refer to trips to Sarkland or Miklagard as well as to Gardariki). What do you think? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varangian runestones

Just checked and Gwyn Jones's book has a large section on Aldeigjuborg and other Varangian stones. I will read up and get cracking on this ASAP. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wayland Smith in popular culture

Wayland Smith in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Wayland Smith in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayland Smith in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wayland Smith in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Eric the victorious.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Eric the victorious.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pieter Kuiper 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/Pieter Kuiper 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image may well be okay. Can you establish the source of the image and its date of first publication? Haukur 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fetch

In time when you have time, please ford some advice on progressing Fæcce, it would be most welcome!
FANx
B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Crêpon

I know it's not really your thing, but could you have a quick look at House of Crêpon if you have a few minutes. It seems to be rather unlikely to me, but perhaps there's a germ of truth in it. Hope you're well, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runestone categories

Dear Berig, long time no see! Hope you are well and happy with life in general (in spite of the wet summer). You have contributed so many articles this summer (while I was too far from civilization to get a decent connection and keep up with it all) that I haven't even gotten through half of it yet. What I see is excellent and extraordinary stuff, stuff that fills a big void and will be extremely useful for educators worldwide. Love it! I'm writing you now because a slight problem with the categorization of the Scandinavian runestone articles has developed. I don't know if you noticed, but the categories for Danish and Swedish runestones were changed in late July to the following formats: "Runestones in Denmark" and "Runestones in Sweden". This creates a slight problem for the runestones in the historical border region Skåneland (classified as Danish runestones by most scholars, stones mostly erected by one individual sponsor who asserted claims in the manner of Harald Bluetooth, mainly male sponsors, and a larger percentage defiantly pagan, etc, etc) and those in Germany. (The Hedeby stones in modern Germany are now categorized as being in Denmark for example). A somewhat overzealous, fairly novice editor has recently gone on a editing spree to blank pages and remove categories from articles, even depopulating the category "Runestones, Skåneland" and leaving the runestones you had placed in that category orphaned---they are not in the category created for Skåneland, nor in the categories "Runestones in Denmark" or "Runestones in Sweden". In addition, the category "Runestones, Skåneland" has been renamed "Runestones in Scania". It's just a mess. I intended to start to recategorize them (by utilizing the original category "Runestones in Scania", which is the only sub-category that appears within the category Runestones in Sweden, and then create "Runestones in Blekinge", "Runestones in Halland" while also adding "Runestones, Skåneland" and "Runestones in Sweden" to the articles themselves), but I just realized that the same user has already created "Runesstones, Blekinge" and "Runestones, Halland", but without including those sub-categories anywhere. If all categories under "Runestones in Sweden" are about to be renamed "Runestones in XX-province" , it doesn't make much sense to add or change anything until that is dealt with. However, I think that we need to have the original sub-category for runestones in Skåneland recreated, and we also need to have the runstones located in the three Swedish provinces appear under "Runestones in Sweden", although they are not, strictly speaking, Swedish runestones. I'll wait for you to check it out and decide what should be doneso that the categorization doesn't get even more screwed up. Sigh. Best, Pia 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, insisting on the format 'Runestones in XXX" would create a lot of work! Actually, anything to do with categories seems work-intensive, frustrating and difficult to me: maintaining categories, redirecting/merging categories (can it even be done?), renaming categories, all of it is "sigh-business" to me. I think I'll plan on requesting a sort of mass-merger and a mass-renaming of all Skåne categories to Scania categories then, to reflect the name of the main article and to avoid anymore doubling up of categories---and then I'll recreate the "Runes, Skåneland" category so that this sub-category can be included in both the Runes, Denmark and Runes, Sweden category. But it will have to be later. I'm already tired, just thinking about it. ;) Best wishes, Pia 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the change, nor even propose it. It was community consensus: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 27. You may wish to nominate them for a re-configuration or discuss it at WP:DRV, but unilaterally going against consensus may be viewed as disruptive. Also, WP has a pretty standard policy of categorizing things per present borders regardless of scholars' views: (a) this provides ease of use for the general user, (b) it avoids border/ethnic squabbles by providing a bright line rule, and (c) provides consistency, because runestone scholars may prefer it this way, maybe some don't, but even if there is uniformity among runestone scholars, there is certainly difference between them and Classicists who may categorize inscriptions and artefacts by Roman province, or Greek city state (or mother colony in some instances) - and some by find spot and others by provenance, all of which may be irrelevant to modern borders, etc. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly never intended anything but an overturn of the moves and WP:DRV as to the appropriateness of the consensus decisions which only included two or three voters, IIRC.--Berig 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Song of Eric

Hello, Berig. I have included a bit more text in your article Song of Eric, and just wondered if you would like to have a look. /Leos Friend 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-dís in names

Bryndís, Ásdís, Þórdís etc. are common girls' names in Iceland. See is:Íslensk_mannanöfn_eftir_notkun. Haukur 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction! The Icelanders are great at keeping the old naming traditions alive.--Berig 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for noticing! After spending so much time with it, I was very pleased to see it selected for the front page :) --Drieakko 13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skjold kaares til konge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Skjold kaares til konge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the bot notice that the copyright holder allows free use of the classroom poster on condition that it is attributed?--Berig 09:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]