Talk:Eric Bloodaxe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Eirik and Eric
I've changed Eirik to Eric (except as the Norwegian spelling where it provides useful information) for three reasons:
- First, the spelling Eric is vastly more popular in English (a Google test of "Eric Bloodaxe" yields 19,500 compared with 669 for "Eirik Bloodaxe").
- Secondly, it is inconsistent to have Eric in the page name and Eirik in the text.
- Thirdly, it is odd to mix English and Norwegian in the name "Eirik Bloodaxe"
Whilst on the potentially disputable subject of names, it would be useful to have Eric Bloodaxe's name in other languages of his day - Latin, Anglo-Saxon, Old Irish - can anyone help? Greenshed 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naming ? Move ?
A fairly simple question: is Eric Bloodaxe sufficiently well-known by his epithet/cognomen to justify calling the article Eric Bloodaxe ? Eric/Eirik Bloodaxe apparently beats Eric/Eirik I handily on Google books. So, the question is, how overwhelmingly does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) actually demand before the exception reading "a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen" applies ? My superficial inquiry leads me to suppose that even sources which refer to "Eric I" mention "Eric Bloodaxe" whereas the far larger number which mention "Eric Bloodaxe" do not necessarily mention "Eric I". Seems overwhelming to me, but I'm biased. I imagine this is sufficiently controversial in any case that the requested move procedure would be in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Norwegian king before Haakon V Magnusson is primarly known by numeral, well until now when wiki has become the global policy maker Fornadan (t) 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- On Wikipedia we are supposed to follow usage in other works and not to engage in exciting original research, so they say. If Harald Fairhair is better known as that, or Eric Bloodaxe in this case, that's what the articles should be called. It might be easier to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), but until then every case will need to be done on its merits. I assume that you would be in favour of Eric Bloodaxe or some similar title ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it would reduce confusion to use cognomens or patronyms for, at least, the first few kings:
Harald I of Norway > Harald Fairhair Eric I of Norway > Eric Bloodaxe Haakon I of Norway > Haakon the Good Olaf I of Norway > Olaf Tryggvason
The numerals can be confusing and misleading. For example Eric the Victorious is the first historical king of Sweden but we list him as Eric VI of Sweden. The king we list as Magnus VI of Norway actually called himself Magnus IV of Norway and is often referred to as such - Magnus the Lawmender is unambiguous. And who remembers what numeral Harald Hardrada had? I always have to look it up when I want to make a link to his article. Haukur 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The inflexibility of that convention has been annoying me for quite some time. Angus might remember the Orkney earls move marathon some months ago, and then there's Kristina of Norway and Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway. Magnus Eriksson has been moved around several times because it's not entirely obvious how many Swedish Magnuses there are, (Which resulted in Magnus Henriksen being moved to Magnus (II) of Sweden) (needs to stop ranting) Fornadan (t) 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Allow me to pitch in as well: Fornadan summarized it well: "No Norwegian king before Haakon V Magnusson is primarly known by numeral". Wikipedia is entirely unique, as far as I know, in naming Norwegian medieval kings in this way. But: Eric Bloodaxe is not any different from all the others in this respect. So, if he is moved, all the others up to Eric Magnusson should be moved as well. The advantage of the current naming convention is that it is reasonably unambiguous. If we start using cognomens, where should, for instance, Harald I of Norway go? Harald Fairhair, Harald Hairfair, Harald Finehair or Haraldr hárfagri? Still, this is a problem that could be solved with disambiguation pages, I guess. --Barend 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Btw, I have asked a related question on Talk:Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway --Barend 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- A different solution can be seen on the official webpage of the Norwegian royal family, [1]. It is impossible to link straight to the relevant page, but if you go to this link, click on Monarkiet i Norge at the top left of the screen, and then on Kongerekken at bottom right. You will see the official list of kings. Eric is listed as Eirik I (Haraldsson) Blodøks. All the kings up to Christian I are listed with ordinal number and cognomen. This is the way it is commonly done in Norwegian encyclopedias as well.--Barend 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's also the solution that can be seen in the index of The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Sigo 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- A different solution can be seen on the official webpage of the Norwegian royal family, [1]. It is impossible to link straight to the relevant page, but if you go to this link, click on Monarkiet i Norge at the top left of the screen, and then on Kongerekken at bottom right. You will see the official list of kings. Eric is listed as Eirik I (Haraldsson) Blodøks. All the kings up to Christian I are listed with ordinal number and cognomen. This is the way it is commonly done in Norwegian encyclopedias as well.--Barend 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
Most Anglo Saxon kings had cognomens as did the Franks. Egbert was sometimes known as "the Great"- as were Cnut and William the Bastard. Otherwise we have Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Athelstan the Glorious, Edmund the Magnificent, Eadwig the Fair. Edgar the Peaceful, Ethelred the Unready, Edmund Ironsides, Harald Harefoot and Edward the Confessor. Workersdreadnought 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other requested moves
Please see the discussion at Talk:Harald I of Norway regarding other requested move of early Norwegian kings. With the exception of what to call Harald Sigurdsson, I believe they are fairly uncontroversial. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Eric I of Norway → Eric Bloodaxe – Eric Bloodaxe (even discounting the hacker) wins overwhelmingly on Google books. Even Encarta use Eric Bloodaxe. Most results for plausible searches on Google books find a different "Eric I", Eric of Pomerania. Seems obvious and uncontroversial but the target has an edit history so it isn't a trivial move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support obviously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support per my comments above. Haukur 12:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support Fornadan (t) 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support if it is done for all Norwegian kings up to and including Eirik II of Norway/Eirik Magnusson. --Barend 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support "Overwhelmingly known, in English [and other languages], by a cognomen". Let's respect the rule, even if I don't appreciate it much, because it creates inconsistencies (some titles using the numeral, some the cognomen, some the patrony - Olaf I of Norway should probably be moved to Olaf Tryggvason for instance). Sigo 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I do not agree with Barend's generalization, however. Bloodaxe, Olaf Tryggvason, and a few others are overwhelmingly known by nicknames; but not all of them. The only reason to accept the inconsistencies is when the article name is itself surprising. Septentrionalis 20:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Add any additional comments.
The only problem I have with these names (Bloodaxe, Fairhair, etc.) is that they create inconsistencies which may (or may not) be more confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject matter than the current (rare) forms. Certainly I wouldn't expect the form "Eric I of Norway" to appear anywhere in the actual article, as "Eric Bloodaxe" would, but I am comfortable with the current titling. If it is changed, I won't complain (I may even be glad). Let me just if Google Books and like searches are really relevant? If I were writing a book, I would probably have little cause to use the form "Eric I of Norway," if I were encyclopaedist on the other hand... Srnec 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popular Culture
I have been looking for a reference but I cannot find one, but am I the only person who remembers a heavy metal band called "Eric Bloodaxe's Squashed Bunnies" ? Workersdreadnought 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)