User talk:Thhist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Thhist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Thhist (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Royal seals

Thanks for the seals added to Commons and List of Norwegian monarchs. — Breadbasket 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear its appreciated! I'll continue to add more related images given that I find useable (PD) sources. Thhist (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you don't mind that I reverted your changes to Olaf and Margaret on the List of Norwegian monarchs since I think the tapestry portrait and the tomb effigy in these two cases better reflect these two than their seals.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind an argument, but doesn't the contemporaneously have first priority? Thhist (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. This is the only list of monarch that I have edited upon with that problem raised. If an image is not as non-contemporary or horrendously inaccurate like [1] then I think it is fine as long as people indicate the dates and background behind the image (that shouldn't even be a problem on a list, more of a problem to be raised on the individual article themselves). Like the statue busts that you added, I am pretty sure they weren't made during the reign of those kings and were probably made as a set at the same time for some cathedrals. Some seals are just anthropomorphous figures probably not even depicting the rulers that well; I like them for all the rest of the monarchs but just not those two cases.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's no big deal. I can agree with you that those two particular images you wanted are ok to use instead of the seals. But you're wrong about the statue busts that I have added (Sverre, Magnus VI, Eric II and Haakon V)– they are indeed contemporary; according to Store norske leksikon/Norsk biografisk leksikon the head of Sverre (in Nidaros) is dated "c.1200/early 1200s", while the three other (in Stavanger) are dated "after 1272/73" (I assume it is meant sometime in the next few years, otherwise they would probably state something else, e.g. "early 1300s" if it crossed into the next century. Also, Haakon V is depicted without a royal crown, implying it was made before he became king, in 1299.). I have also found sources which assign a few more statue busts from the Nidaros Cathedral to a couple more kings as well, but unfortunately I have not yet found pictures of them in public domain sources. If I do, I'll of course be sure to upload them as well. Thhist (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

St Olaf / Gorm

Hi mate. Thought I should let you know that I've just edited Template:Royal houses of Europe. Your edits created two redlinks because pages for the two houses you listed have not been created. I have fixed both links so they point to their respective houses in their respective monarchy lists. Just in case your intention was to go ahead and create new pages for each house, I kept the old links within hidden tags ( <!-- ) so that they can be brought back fairly easily. Apologies if I've created problems for you. Please let me know if you would like some help creating the new pages (if that was your intention). Otherwise, I'll leave a note for myself to remove the redlinks at some later date if no-one has created new pages. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

I had no intentions to create the articles myself, so it's probably best to redirect the links as you did instead. But you don't necessarily have to remove the hidden links though, just in case someone else would want to create the articles. Thhist (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Sounds like a plan - will leave them in place. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Haakon Sigurdsson

Do you know Haakon Sigurdsson's status? Was he de-facto ruler, a vassal king or a King of Norway? He seemed to rule without the Danish from 975 to 995.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Haakon Sigurdsson allied himself with the Danish king and helped challenge (and eventually kill) the Norwegian king, but never claimed to be a "king" himself. He always accepted at least nominal subordination to the Danish king, but in practice exercised more or less independent control of Norway (the Danes had no regular physical presence in Norway). It would thus be most correct to say that the Danes were de jure kings of Norway in the period, and Haakon de facto regent of Norway. (The only formal "title" ever held by Haakon was Earl of Lade.) Thhist (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't he an exception compared to the other regents since he actually stopped recognizing the Danish King as his overlord by 975 and openly attacked the force of Harald Bluetooth at the Battle of Hjörungavágr in 986. I am interested to know what could we should call him after that point since he wasn't bound to any allegiance or vassalage to the Danish kings.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Haakon really only ruled Norway independently of the Danes after the Battle of Hjörungavágr. What he should be called is a somewhat open question, but Norsk biografisk leksikon says that Haakon is "usually counted as Norwegian riksstyrer (regent/ruler) from c. 970 to 995". In the official Norwegian regnal list[2] only Haakon is counted in the period c. 970 to 995 (neither Harald Bluetooth or Sweyn Forkbeard), but his entry is styled "Haakon Sigurdsson, Earl of Lade (Danish rule)". I agree that "regent" or "ruler" is the best option to use for the entire time (in combination with either "vassal" or "de facto"), since he never had any de jure status anyway (besides Earl of Lade). The only possible distinction as I see it would be to say he was a "regent" until 985, and "ruler" thereafter, but this might be rather artificial. (It would in any case be misleading and wrong to say he was a "king", if you were considering that option.) What he should be called also depend somewhat on the context, so it might be easier to answer if you could specify exactly what use you are thinking about? Thhist (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

English

Please use English, including long established English name forms, when contributing to English Wikipedia. Your recent arbitrary changes to Charles VIII of Sweden were way out of line. Article name and first bolded name are to match. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that the article name and first bolded name have to match is simply not true, there are a vast number of articles in which the two differ, sometimes significantly. I also added references to show that his native name is also used in plenty English sources (just search Google Books for "karl knutsson bonde" and see for yourself), so using this name is by no means "arbitrary" (I am however open for discussion about which name to use). Thhist (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Haakon I of Norway

Do you know the Old Norse and Norwegian forms of Haakon I of Norway's nickname Haakon the Good? Could you add those, if you know them, to the article? The current article only talks about the Adalsteinfostre part of his name.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's done. Thhist (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also for Magnus the Good, how is "Magnús góði Ólafsson" a translation for Magnus the Good. Is "góði" good? Also shouldn't you provide the modern day Norwegian translation of Magnus' name too. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Magnús góði Ólafsson" was what I found as the general Old Norse naming of Magnus from the Norwegian article. It would translate as "Magnus the Good Olafsson". I'll see what I can do with it, and add Norwegian name. Thhist (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "Ólafsson"-part, which probably isn't necessary to include since it's virtually the same as the English and Norwegian "Olafsson". Thhist (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you give your opinion for Haakon again on Talk:Harald II of Norway?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Tore Skinnfeld

Is it Tore Skinnfeld or Thorer Skinnfeld? What is the proper spelling? He was the first husband of Queen Estrid Bjørnsdotter.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know since I have no knowledge about that person. Tore is generally a more common name though. Thhist (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria

Do you think you could turn List of Norwegian monarchs into a feature list article like List of French monarchs, List of monarchs of East Anglia, List of emperors of the Han Dynasty, List of emperors of the Song Dynasty. All we really need are those sources you've talk about adding and some more prose and I think it might meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly want to do so, but I think there are too many unresolved issues at present. For instance, look at the lists you mentioned. In all of those, all the information is strictly relevant to a "list of monarchs", namely portrait, name, length of reign and possibly another column for relevant info/comments to the reign. The Norwegian list on the other hand is packed with a bunch of information that really isn't relevant to a "list of monarchs", with full information of parents, marriages, children, time and place of birth, death. To me it seems more as a list of brief biographies of monarchs, with too much unnecessary excessive information. I don't say I necessarily want all of this to go, but I think the list should focus more on the monarchial aspects of the monarchs, and less on their personal lives. I just can't help but feel that something's "not right" with the present format. While it certainly could be appropriate to note that Magnus I was a son of Olaf II (relevant for succession), nobody wanting to read a general list of Norwegian monarchs cares that Olaf Tryggvason was "son of Tryggve Olafsson and Astrid Eiriksdottir", two insignificant and obscure figures.

Furthermore, is it really necessary to give full detailed lists for the co-rulers such as "1136–1161 with Sigurd II (1136–1155) and Eystein II (1142–1157) and Haakon II (1157–1161)". I don't think I'm the only one who finds this way to complicated, especially when it is repeated for several monarchs in a row. Why not instead, for instance simply write "Co-reign (to/from xxxx)", and let the reader figure the rest out, if desired, based on the length of the reigns. I also have problems with the late 19th century pictures added as "Portraits" under various kings. While the pictures hardly can be counted as portraits themselves, largely only including a king as a diffuse miniature character in a crowd of people, the small format used for the list makes their use utter nonsense in my opnion. Needless to say, I do understand that my proposals are radical for an apparently established article, but I at least have no desire to get more involved otherwise. As said, i would love to get the list to featured status, but I just have too many problems with how the list is formatted at present. To make matters worse, there are certain regular editors of the article who seems to be impossible to cooperate with, making everything just feel hostile and inhospitable. Nonetheless, I would be happy to discuss my proposals with you to see if we could find some common ground. Thhist (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems only the simpler lists have been able to meet feature list criteria because the necessity of references not actually the relevance. I would disagree about the relevance since I've found this format to be best and most informative on wikipeida since it allows the reader to know the lifespan, reign, family and place of association related to the monarch. Is referencing these going to be a problem for you?

Although, I would agree with the removal of the co-reigns, altogether, and leaving the reader to read the overlapping dates of some of these rulers reigns. I would concede on the saga images if it could mean a feature list status for this article. The main thing that needs to be done right now is adding sources on a reference section for the table, and sentences for the transition of each house and expanding/citing the summary at the beginning. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I can start by adding references to the list, and then we can go on from there. I'll also change to my proposed co-reign format. About the pictures, I don't believe their removal will change anything regarding a featured list proposal, given that there are many early monarchs without pictures anyway. The pictures are really only a "bonus feature" in any case, at least for the earliest few monarchs. Thhist (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you crop the side with the from File:Sweyn Forkbeard coin.jpg, so we can use it for the list instead.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Done and added to list. I'll see if I can continue working on the list later today, but if not I'll probably be able to resume tomorrow. Thhist (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think this will ever pass the 6th criteria for a feature list. I hope that you will still continue to edit for the benefit of the article. I would like to hear your opinion on the regents inclusion before I put this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you keeping the age of the monarch or removing them? I am little confused why you left some and removed others.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for not responding earlier (some issues outside the realm of the internet). I originally removed the ages because I thought it made little sense to include it for kings such as Harald Fairhair, whose year of birth (and to some degree year of death) is just an estimate or educated guess. I stopped removing it when I realised the age could be identified pretty accurately +-1 year. Since I obviously removed too many, I suggest we can start giving ages with Magnus the Good (the first king with accurate "c. xxxx" yob and complete date for yod. Thhist (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnus the Good, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrast of images

Haakon VI

Sometimes I see an image on Wikipedia that is in my opinion too pale, or lacking in contrast, or poor in some other way; so I copy it from Commons, try to improve it, and re-upload it. I have never had any feedback when I have done this. My change does not appear in any article history, so maybe people don't realise that something has changed.

Recently I did this to the image of Haakon VI of Norway, which I see you uploaded to Commons. I thought that the original version was too pale, so I made it darker and increased the contrast. But looking at it now, I think have overdone it, it is now too dark, and too orange.

I would like to hear your opinion. Maproom (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree that you overdid it. I think the scan should be left/reverted to the way it was originally. A stronger contrast isn't very desirable for these images in my opinion. Thhist (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I have reverted the image to its original version. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm sure altering the contrast could be helpful for many images, but it just didn't work well with this one. Thhist (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help w/Harald Bluetooth?

It appears that the information on Harald - regarding his wives and children - is not current with modern scholarship. However, I only know how to use Cawley, and that doesn't rate. If you could take a look at the talk page for Harald - you'll see what we're dealing with. Thanks! --Jrm03063 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnus Barefoot, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Norman and Kincora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Magnus Barefoot

Great work you've been doing on that article! Cheers, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Your encouragement is very much appreciated! Thhist (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I just sent you a wikipedia-e-mail regarding a possible additional source. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've sent you a reply. Thhist (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnus Barefoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Burial place of Magnus Barefoot

You might one to check this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 2#St. Patrick's Church, County Down. Do you know why he was buried in the open.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look at it for reference and see what I can find. Thhist (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a lot of useful references in the article, but otherwise nothing more regarding his burial. I haven't yet seen any direct explanation for why he was buried were he (probably) was. Thhist (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I found something about it in Finbar McCormick's "The Grave of Magnus Barelegs". He writes that "It may well be that the victors of the ambush did not choose to accord a Christian burial to the vanquished but instead buried them near where they had fallen." It's also possible that more is said regarding his grave in another of Rosemary Power's articles, "Magnus Barelegs, the War Hollow and Downpatrick" (found under "further reading" in the Magnus Barefoot article), but I have unfortunately not been able to get access to the article. Thhist (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Wonderful work on Rodulf (petty king). Krakkos (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job

You have a great job of improving the articles on the Kings of Norway. What are your plans for future good articles?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be a bit busy in the near future at least, but I have otherwise considered several options for future good articles. Some of those I ideally want to do, particularly Harald Fairhair and the first modern independent king Haakon VII (my personal hero), might however be too great tasks to do alone. I have therefore considered Haakon the Good, Magnus the Good or Sigurd the Crusader more realistic options, which also probably are more interesting subjects for non-Norwegian readers (similarly to my two previous articles), considering this is the English WP. What do you think? Thhist (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best? I just really want to see it become a feature list and if removing the spouses can do then sure. I think it might easier to remove birth and death dates and make reign into reign began and reign until like the other feature lists for monarchs. .--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope you come back to finish the great work you done with the list.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can find the time..

Hi there! I have at the moment a peer review on my own going, Wikipedia:Peer review/Impalement/archive2 I'd by grateful if you can leave a few of your impressions on it, when you find the time.Arildnordby (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A gift for you

	The goat of encouragement
	You've done a lot of really great work on Norwegian kings in a short space of time, and you also made reviewing Eystein I a pleasant experience. Perhaps a good or featured topic somewhere down the line? May this goat inspire your editing today and in the weeks to come. Keep up the good work! Moswento talky 10:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are awesome!

Thanks for making Battle of Montemaggiore! Sorry, a little bit about me, I thoroughly enjoy the Norman conquest of southern Italy. I was talking to srnec about wishing I had more time to make/expand articles relating to it. Anywho, I just wanted to drop by and comment on that. Cheers! — -dainomite   22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging feedback (and your additional edits to the article)! Although I'm not particularly knowledgable about the Norman invasion of Italy, I believe this campaignbox I've made linking the three battles should be appropriate(?). Btw, great that you've also made improvements to the Battle of Olivento article. Thhist (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Montemaggiore at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Montemaggiore

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Borgarting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Holmengrå

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Anglesey Sound

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Paris (845)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Florvåg

Allen3 ^talk 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1