Talk:John I of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

If someone more talented than I could make the infobox look like the succession box it would be appreciated. I can't seem to get it to float correctly. gren 29 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I don't like how the article looks because there's a big block of white space between the third and fourth paragraphs. I think the table code should be moved back to where it was in the middle of the sentence before to compensate for this.--Primetime 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not neccesary, see how it looks now. /Grillo 03:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't like the white space. There's too much.--Primetime 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where do you see whitespace? After Da3d's edit, it's gone. If you still see it, clean your cache. /Grillo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, you use Internet Explorer, stupid IE... Don't put the code back into the sentence though! Better with a little whitespace than how it looked in Opera before, then the table was left of the image and the text was extremely narrow. /Grillo 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Moving the table to the top (or maybe the code conversion) at 03:53, 24 April seems to have fixed it. Sorry about that. Looks great now.--Primetime 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting the table at the top fixed the whitespace issue, apparently IE doesn't like having it anywhere else. Of course, the image is also much further down, but that will at least not impact the reading. --Da3d 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Shouldn't the article name be John of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (remove the last comma)? /Grillo 04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be at John of Denmark like every other article on a Kalmar monarch? john k 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that they've all been moved...sigh. Denmark was the main kingdom. We should have Christian I of Denmark, John of Denmark, and Christian II of Denmark. john k 04:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Kalmar Union was a union, and the monarchs had to accede to the throne in a legitimate way in all three kingdoms. I do not agree that any one kingdom was the "main" kingdom. Had not Queen Margaret (who by the way was not queen of Denmark, as her article says, but regent) had the position of queen dowager of the kingdoms of Norway and—formally—Sweden, there would never have been a union in the first place. Legitimacy was tremendously important in medieval government, which is shown also by the history of King Charles VIII of Sweden.
Also, it looks peculiar with John of Denmark or the like in articles dealing with Swedish or Norwegian regents.
As for the comma, to my best knowledge American and British standards differ.
Best, Anders Fröjmark 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to refer to him as "John of Denmark" in other articles. As to whether a kingdom was the main kingdom, all the Kalmar monarchs primarily resided in Denmark. The later monarchs who were kings of Denmark and Norway are listed at Christian III of Denmark, and so forth. James I of England was King of both England and Scotland, but we only list England in his article title. &c. john k 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Anders Fröjmark had made copy-and-paste moves of Christian I and Christian II. Shilkanni 00:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the copy-and-paste moves, I'm still learning the rules of Wikipedia.
I still think Christian I and Christian II were better article names, for the sake of brevity plus historical correctness. Christian III, mentioned by John Kenney, actually eliminated the status of Norway as a separate kingdom, so in his case, it is less problematic to refer to him as Christian III of Denmark.
As for king John, he has AFAIK never been referred to as "John I" in Danish historiography. I can see the point in the disambiguation argument of Shilkanni, but I would suggest another solution. In recent textbooks (e.g. A History of Scandinavia by T.K. Derry (1979), Medieval Scandinavia by Sawyer & Sawyer (1993), and Cambridge History of Scandinavia, vol. 1 (2003), he is always referred to under his Scandinavian name, Hans. The Britannica 2002, while keeping "John" as their main entry, does the same in some of its historical articles. If would therefore suggest Hans (union king) as the main entry in Wikipedia, thereby facilitating for many users who have met him through these or other historical books. Anders Fröjmark 14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. We do not need more suggestions to his article name. We need to keep him in this one location, which is predictable enough. He was called also Hans. That should be a redirect. But one thing is clear: authors who write more referrals to him in articles, easily guess that John I of Denmark will work. We need to keep the consistency: "first name + regnal number + of + mostimportantcountry" is easiest to predict and does not seem odd in company of his fellow monarchs. Writers will be frustrated with a parentheses-filled specific version - that would be something they need to check in detail in advance before writing their text in totally another page here. Finally, do not make anything too convoluted - omeone has joked about its effects in an example: Talk:Wilhelm, Duke of Glucksburg Shilkanni 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

John I of Denmark (or Hans I of Denmark) would be convention. Ferdinand II of Aragon is referred to as such, even though he was also king of Castille, Sicily, Naples, etc. etc. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard our Danish king Hans referred to as John before. Is this common in the English tongue? As a Dane it is rather confusing. Not to mention silly. Methinks the article name should be Hans of Denmark. Then at least we Danes would recognise him. No Dane I believe - except perhaps for historians and history buffs - have heard of a Danish "King John". ;-) Krungadoren 00:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd only seen him called Hans before (in various books in English) but Encyclopaedia Britannica does call him John. Seems weird but <shrug>.... --Zeborah 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support a move to "Hans". john k 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)