User talk:Wiglaf/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:archive 1 (Feb 03 2004 - Aug 30 2004), archive 2 (Aug 30 2004 - April 18 2005), archive 3 (April 18 2005 - May 30 2005), archive 4 (May 30 2005 - July 6 2005), archive 5 (July 6 2005 - August 13 2005), archive 6 (August 13 2005 - September 11 2005), archive 7 (September 12 2005 - October 28 2005), archive 8 (October 29 2005 - September 28 2006)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 14:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] The Normandist Theory

Hi again, Wiglaf!

Since you've decided to check it out, there's something else that I didn't mention in my letter to you (I didn't want to post too much info :)). Could you also ask your wife (or her mother, since she's an academician) about the Rurik - Sineus - Truvor theory (Rurik's brothers)? It's a part of the Normandist theory that Russian historians seriously question, as well. I understand that you are from Sweden, then you might wanna know this when you find your info on this subject: Russians believe that Sineus and Truvor weren't real persons, but they were victims of Nestor's sloppy translation. It could be that Rurik came to Rus' with sine hus (Sineus, or Sinehus, or his house) and tru varing (Truvor, or loyal guards) ("a" with a circle above it; not sure about the Swedish spelling). And did you know that these German gentlemen - Hoetlieb Ziegfrid Bayer (not sure about the spelling, last name Bayer is correct, though), Gerhardt Friedrich Müller and August Ludwig von Schlözer - are mainly responsible for coming up with and spreading the Normandist theory in Russia? It was heavily criticized by a Russian statesman and historian Vasili Tatischev and Mikhail Vasilevich Lomonosov for lack of proof and possibly poor translation and interpretation of the Primary Chronicle (at least one of them couldn't even speak Russian :), that's a fact). I mean, if you can't find any info on the Russian POV, I would gladly translate the stuff that I got, I'm just not sure where to post it (maybe, there should be an article "The Russian POV on the Normandist theory" :) or something like that). KNewman 07:33, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi KNewman. Yes, I have heard about the mistranslation (sine hus, etc.). The theory makes sense, but I don't think it contradicts the Normanist theory. It rather supports by explaining the odd names Sineus and Truvor.
In fact, you're very welcome to add the information about the German gentlemen under The Antinormanist theories in the same article.--Wiglaf 07:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Wiglaf!

I've just read your piece on the Normandist theory in a few articles (e.g., Rus' (people)). It is extremely well-written (if you're the author, in fact; I tried to figure it out from the article's history of editing), however, I found that it contains a bit distorted info about modern Russian historians' view (and Soviet, for that matter) on this theory. I am surprised that nobody even mentioned the following predominant Russian version of what supposedly happened (and from what I've read, it's not because Russians don't want to be considered to be of Scandinavian origin; Russian historians just happen to believe otherwise). Russian historians believe that Rurik started out as a ruler of Ladoga and then in 862 seized power in Novgorod (without invitation), taking advantage of the internecine wars. Rurik's rise to power caused an uprising of the people of Novgorod, led by Vadim Khrabry (Vadim the Brave), which would be suppressed by Rurik. Vadim and some of his closest associates were executed in 864. The rest of the rebels fled to Kiev. Russians also believe that Askold and Dir, who had been members of Rurik's army, at some point decided to leave him and seized Kiev, where they would later be killed by Oleg in 882. Russians believe that Oleg was in fact Rurik's sibling and ruled Novgorod after Rurik's death, but not that he simply transfered the capital from Novgorod to Kiev.

I would really like to know whether you were aware of this Russian theory and your point of view on all of this. Sorry, if you weren't the author, but anyway, I really enjoy talking to intelligent people. KNewman 01:54, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate you kind words. Yes, I believe I am the only writer of the Normanist theory and I have written most of the rest too. My wife is Russian and has a mother who is a professor of history at the Academy of Science in Moscow. I just asked her about what you wrote, and she says that she has heard about it. I'll try to see what I can find about this in English. I have the habit of always double checking information (no offense) :).--Wiglaf 06:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-European religion

Very nice work on Indo-European religion! Keep it up. Jor 15:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image stones

Hi, I added your very nice picture of the image stone from Gotland (correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume it's from Gotland) to the rune stone page. Thanks for good contributions! Nixdorf 09:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the e-mail, by the way! :-) --Ruhrjung 11:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Say, what about the Swedish pedia?

Maybe I'm assuming or imagining that you said somewhere you're Swedish - if not however, have you considered working a bit on the Swedish wikipedia? Most of the articles you worked on here (or the ones where I've seen you work here) could surely use an overhaul on the Swedish pedia as well. I think you're doing a very good job and I'd like the same to happen with the Swedish pages. I originally worked only on the English pedia but once I started on the Swedish pages instead, I found that I actually liked that better. Nowadays, the only edits I do on the English pedia is minor corrections and international links. (and if I'm wrong in remembering you're Swedish, just consider it a compliment :D) // OlofE 11:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. :-) Well, perhaps I should. Wiglaf

Wiglaf, here is a site for you to add yourself to: WIKIng Kenneth Alanson 15:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Basque

In a recent edit in Basque, you deleted without comment the phrase "except for the Alans (also known as the Sarmatians) who it now seems were probably Turkish speakers." This completely changed the meaning of a paragraph (in fact, it rendered it more or less meaningless), but you didn't even make a comment on your edit, let alone discuss it in the talk page. I have no idea of the facts of the matter, but the paragraph now borders on nonsense and needs to be fixed. Can you please give us a clue (preferably on the article's talk page) what your edit is about? -- Jmabel 22:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the piece about the the Alans' and the Sarmatians' possible Turkish identity as I don't think the article benefits from further hypotheses. Moreover, the Basques were not Turkish, AFAIK. I believe the preceeding part says it all: "During the Germanic migrations that swept Europe after the fall of Rome, for instance, almost all the tribes were Indo-Europeans". It is already remarked that ALL were not I-E, and perhaps the Huns or the Avars could be added instead as the consensus is that they were not I-E. Wiglaf

[edit] "Uncredited material on Indo-European religion"

The author of this has stated that Indo-European religion contains some text he wrote. It looks like a small amount of text and since you are the main author of the Wikipedia article, could you rewrite the sentences this other author has a problem with? I've already added a reference and a link to this other author's webpage. See: Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation#Uncredited_material_on_Indo-European_religion. --mav 06:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, it has already been done. It wasn't I who added it, but I took for granted that it was fair use.--Wiglaf

[edit] Nietzsche and Indo Europeans

How could the philosopher Nietzsche have contributed to the discovery of the Indo Europeans? This sounds implausible to me. Thanks in advance. Andries 00:35, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

It took that info from another Wikipedia article. I didn't write that he contributed to it. He studied the philosphy based on the assumption that they did exist. Feel free to remove it, if you will. I have stopped contributing to Wikipedia.

[edit] Odr;Svipdag;Swipdag

Hi, I rerouted your redirect from Swipdag -> Odr to Swipdag -> Svipdag, who is worthy of a discrete subject as the protegonist of Svipdagsmal. I think we probably need to link the Odr article to the Svipdag article, and make the point about the interrelationship and confusion between Odin/Odr/Svipdag there. We can then use some of the thematic relationships within Svipdagsmal to bring out why these ambiguities exist within the Norse mythos. Do you agree or would you prefer another course of action? Sjc 10:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps we should make a special page about Rydberg's version of Norse mythology. I am sorry I can't help out. I have promised myself not to contribute to Wikipedia, until I have finished my ph D. Wiglaf

OK; good luck :) Sjc 11:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of curiosity ...

... what is your specialty in linguistics? (And now I'll leave you in peace. :-) Cheers Io 21:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The conceptual structure of Internet interaction. --Wiglaf 08:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Askefruer

I told you I would ask for help. :-) There is an article Askefruer which goes thus:

In Norse mythology, Askefruer ("ash maidens") were the Norse equivalent of nymphs. They were tree-dwelling spirits, similar to hamadryads.

Now, Askefruer is obviously Danish, and personally I have never heard of these ladies. Isn't this more likely to be Danish folklore rather than Norse? (The word fru itself speaks against a Norse origin.) Cheers Io 12:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that many contributors use the name "norse mythology" to refer to what I think should be called Scandinavian folklore. In some articles on Wikipedia, the names folklore and mythology blend together completely. In my opinion we should keep the name "norse mythology" to the stories of the old gods and heroes. The problem also relates to how we define "norse". In Wikipedia "Norse" means Scandinavian and often it even means Germanic.
In my mind this would be a better wording: In Scandinavian folklore, Askefruer ("ash maidens") were the Danish equivalent of nymphs. They were tree-dwelling spirits, similar to hamadryads.
I have edited the article according to your suggestion. It turns out that Scandinavian Mythology redirects to Norse Mythology. I must say, this is going to a lot more work than I first thought. All I originally wanted to do was supply a few correct spellings. :-) Anyway, I'll finish the letter A from the list of what links here on the Norse Mythology page. It should be posted in a couple of days. Then I'll work my way through the alphabet, and others can chime in. Thanks for the reply. Cheers Io 14:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is correct. In my mind "Scandinavian mythology" IS "Norse mythology". "Scandinavian folklore" is not.--Wiglaf 14:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I confused the words. I'll change the link in the article to Scandinavian folklore, which doesn't exist yet, but somewhere there is sure to be a Dane, Norwegian or Swede who will write it. There are connections, of course. If I remember it correctly (I haven't got any books on the subject, where I am right now), den vilde jagt may either refer to Óðinn or Valdemar Atterdag. :-) Cheers Io 14:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whoops. Scandinavian folklore does exist after all. I always hit Save page too quickly. Io 14:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I made it :-)--Wiglaf 16:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As it happens, I had just finished editing Freya when I saw your reply. Could you do me a favour and check out Freya and Freyja and tell me, if I was being rude changing the article the way I did? I moved Freya to Freyja and corrected the spelling. I thought we could use this as a test case. If nobody objects, we might proceed. If people get offended, then we'll leave well alone. Cheers Io 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) You have to fix the image. 2) I think it is best we let people respond to the suggestion for a standard first.--Wiglaf 16:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) I have fixed it.
2) I know, it would be more polite, but is there a way to find out, what people think, except to change things and see the reactions? I suspect we could discuss forever without the authors coming forward. On the other hand, if there is a mechanism, i would be glad to know. In any case, if I was being discourteous, I will be the one people scold, in which case you can lean back, smile, relax and watch me take the flak. ;-) Cheers Io 19:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adils

I'm very sorry. In fact, I had no idea that I had locked that page. I haven't been using Wikipedia regularly for several months, as you can see by looking at my edit history, so I'm guessing that I accidently locked it when I was using that 'Classic' skin, where "Protect this page" is right next to "discuss this page" on the sysop toolbar. Oops! --Αλεξ Σ 23:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Goths

I'm not actively developing the article but I am watching your progress - good job! // OlofE 23:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I've been hoping for some developments to the matter - Wiglaf this is good! Jórvíkingr 01:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad that it is appreciated :)--Wiglaf 16:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Elf

Hi there, I noticed you reverted a small portion of my edits on the Elf page. Unfortunately you didn't leave a clue as to the reason in the history comments or the talk page. I'm curious to know what exactly you found erroneous about those parts of my edit. - Phil R 18:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't revert your contribution. If you look a little closer at the article, you'll see that I created a subsection called "German folklore" for your contribution.--Wiglaf 19:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I saw the para. missing and wondered why anyone would have a problem with it. I didn't really scroll through the other changes before posting here. Sorry about that. Cheers. - Phil R 19:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Swedish kings

You added nice work on swedish kings on the wikipedia. Usually, we list the Kings in our lists of Monarchs and such. For Sweden we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swedish_monarchs. Simply add {{Category:Swedish_monarchs}} to the articles to include them there. Of course it's open to debate wether these early half-legendary kings should be in the regular list of swedsh monarchs or have their own list. Also it might be nice to have a cronologically ordered list parralel to the category. What do you think about all this? If you need/want help with the lists kontakt me.
best regards, Lady Tenar 14:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I am afraid that there are certain contributors who would not appreciate if I added them under {{Category:Swedish_monarchs}}. Actually I would appreciate the creation a proper list for these half legendary kings. I am planning to do a chronological list as well, but the dates are often non-existent. --Wiglaf 17:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would surely appreciate the conglomeration, Wiglaf. There need not be a multitude of pages for the minutest variances we encounter all the time. Jórvíkingr 18:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to have separate categories for half-legendary and proven kings, because a category (at least to my knowledge) can't include comments. So it might be misleading to mix them. The chronological list would make sense even without dates for all of them, because it it seems to be known who comes after whom. in such a list we could add a short comment about weather the existence of the king is proven and so keep them all in one place without causing confusion. I think that would be a good compromise between too many separate lists and the wishes of certain contibutors.Lady Tenar 22:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

should we move this diskussion to a place where it gets more attention? Lady Tenar 22:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry i've written this bevore looking at your work of today. I like your lists very much, don't change them hastily. Lady Tenar 22:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)--Wiglaf 09:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some aid please!

Wiglaf, I'm sure that you're aware that User:Mintguy has been on a mad revert spree against my contributions, regardless of merit. Would you possibly align yourself with my cause to see that valid information is not lost to this dementia? This is for your peace of mind as much as mine, especially in regards to the viking subjects. It is my express concern that Mintguy has no interest at all in the topics and has in effect become a vandal, blinded by his hatred of me. His persistance in eradicating me with his security of sysopship does little to ensure the safe stability of articles, regardless of their stage in development or completion. I believe that his lack of affinity to the subject matter is plain enough to see that he's going out of his way to destroy whatever I have to offer, in whatever stage of ability I possess by practice and succession. It is my fault for not making a sandbox to work out the kinks first, yet there is no greater fault in my contributions than that. I feel no defense against his reversions due to his privilege of blocking me should I restore to the more correct version of article. This is corruptly unwarranted and out of context to my weakness, no matter his esteem of hatred for me. I respectfully request that you help me solve this matter to salvage the areas of Wikipedia affected and enable a defense against this compromise of security. Kenneth Alanson 17:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you tell me which pages are concerned, I can have a look and see if the reversions are warranted.--Wiglaf 17:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it is easier to gauge the validity of his behaviours by seeing this and directing yourself to articles that I suppose you would be affected by. Alas, I cannot guess whether they would be of specific interest to you unless you saw for yourself: contribs It is clear that he has also been in the midst of revert sprees with other users over a bit of time. Kenneth Alanson 17:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changeling

Hi Wiglaf, I think everything is in its proper place now. Adam Bishop 18:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angle brackets

Out of curiosity: Where does the <eth> and other bracketed items you use come from? Is it some convention I don't know of? Cheers Io 14:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an Icelandic keyboard. I usually search the word "Icelandic" and copy and paste the character. I have already stopped doing so as it doesn't work as intended.--Wiglaf 19:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I saw these bracketed things in some edits you made today and was wondering the same thing. Why not use the decimal escape sequences, e.g. &#240; for ð, as recommended by m:Help:Special characters? It should display properly in all modern browsers, but even if it doesn't, I think it would still be the best compromise, especially in cases where the foreign spelling is only parenthetical to the English spelling. Do you have some reason for preferring <eth>? —Triskaideka 16:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My computer does not show the coding only the sign, and so I occasionally use the wrong encoding unconsciously. You are free to correct the spelling. I think, I'll go back to dh, because then no one will complain.--Wiglaf 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi Wiglaf. Are all the edits from 130.238.5.5 yours? Thanks — Kate Turner | Talk 01:52, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Not at all. Only a few of those before febrary 14 2004 are mine. I believe that Tomte and Middle-earth are mine.--Wiglaf 07:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi again. Edits to these articles from 130.238.5.5 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 08:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

[edit] On the breaking of some links

I was aware of the breaking of some links. Because of the number of changes that I made in a few articles, I was not able at that time to fix all links. Also, in many cases, the link should be fixed by moving the linked article to a new value rather than changing the link itself. I found myself involved in more of these changes than I expected. Currently I am mainly working with material from the Anglo-Saxon genealogies, but before expanding the material on Scyld/Skjöld I had to decide whether Scyld or Skjöld should be the proper name for the article. But great use of Scyld as a product name and as a popular software component messed up the Google counts. So I decided to choose on the basis of whether Scylding or Skjöldung was more comonly found in English. Having fixed on Scylding, this led to moving the Shieldings article and setting its links to point back to Scyld while doing so. Of course references of Shieldings and links then should be also changed in other articles. But these other articles also had some other names that needed changing as well as a few other few additions and corrections including spellings of names that I felt might as well be fixed up while I was in the articles. When changing these links I did not in all cases make them complex links as for most of them the correct action is to move the respective article to match the new name in the link.

In short, I will be fixing up the broken links today and will do so in any other articles in which I change spellings, essentially the group of articles about Scyldings/Skjöldungar. At any time, when I find myself involved in revisions that involve a group of articles, there may sometimes be a couple of hours or even a day (possibly even two days) before such links are synchronized again. Rest assured that I don't intend to ever leave any links dangling and if you see some dangling links resulting from my changes, they are probably because I am still in the process of making a related group of changes. So fear not.

I will also shortly be refactoring the discussion on spelling of names in Norse mythology in part to invite further discussion, if anyone has something to add, pointing out articles changed as examples and providing some further points that need to be decided. Diacritics are still a problem. The acute accent seems to be usually dropped on historical names (and certainly not used modern Norwegian, Danish, Swedish) although ö is often retained in English. Accordingly I don't think we should try to force acute accents on names beginning with the reigns of Gorm the Old of Denmark, Harald Fairhair of Norway, or Erik the Victorious of Sweden. Within articles, as usual, some flexibility is tolerable. But the begnning of the historical era for Scandinavia seems to me the reasonable place to jump to a different standard. That is also where we cease being so dependant on only Old Norse texts and where exact reproduction of the minutiae of the Old Norse forms of the names becomes overkill.

Icelandic names are more difficult. Modern Icelandic retains the acute accent and it is also normally retained in English renderings of those names along with ö and æ. However in translations of medieval Icelandic sagas, aggressive Anglicization is proponderant in translations, creating an annoying dichotomy of treatment. Even ö is usually changed to o in the current translations. Though inconsistant with treatment of modern Icelandic, the standard is too prevelant here to be ignored. I think possibly dropping the acute accent but retaining ö might be a reasonable compromise for standard Wikipedia rendering of Icelandic names in the semi-historical and early historical eras in Iceland. There is scholarly precident for such treatment, it is what Britannica does, and it is the usage in some translations and some novels.

Of course in all cases there should be appropriate redirects so that an article can be found by typing in any reasonable spelling.

Jallan 15:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Beowulf and Bödvar

Why is the connection between these two characters so controversial? They apparently correspond to each other in two related traditions.

Apparently' indicates controversy. There is no to say apparently with Halfdan and Halfdene, Fródi and Froda, Ingjald and Ingeld, Hróar and Hrothgar, Helgi and Halga, Hrólf and Hrothulf, Hjörvard and Heoroweard, even between Hrók and Hrethric. Can we imagine that any new source might be discovered that indicated that one of any of these pairs was in origin different from the other? The same is exactly true for Sigurð and Siegfried, for Thor and Donnar, however different these names may seem to be to a non-linguistic eye, though names alone do not indicate identity otherwise. Sometimes names are confused or even swapped.

But as to Bödvar and Beowulf, that Bödvar Bjarki is the only one who can pull a sword from a stone and is connected with a bear and that Arthur is the only one who can pull a sword from a stone and has a name that may be in origin a bear-word doesn't mean Arthur is Bödvar Bjarki. Of course in the English Syr Percyvelle Arthur and his court have been for years reguarly attacked by the Red Knight who enters the hall and steals the king's cup and none can stop him, until the young outsider Percyvelle appears, slays the Red Knight, and then slays the Red Knight's loathsome witch mother. Parallels occur everywhere, and sometimes they clump. Are the Bódvar Bjarki and Beowulf parallels meaningful or are they such a clumping?

I don't know. Some say yes and some say no. Others are circumspect. Andy Orchard in Cassell's Dictionary of Norse Myth & Legend writes under the entry Bödvar Bjarki:

Other aspects of the legends surrounding Bödvar Bjarki have close parallels in the Old English poem BEOWULF, whose own hero, Beowulf ('bee-wolf', 'bear') may perhaps have a similarly ursine name.

Yes, "close parallels" and "may perhaps have". That's the proper NPOV line. The idea that Beowulf and Bödvar Bjarki were originally the same is quite reasonable. But too many very reasonable theories ultimately prove to be incorrect or at least no more likely to be correct than another equally reasonable theory. There's nothing only "quite reasonable" or even "very reasonable" about saying Hróar is Hrothgar. Hróar simply "is" Hrothgar. I think articles in Wikipedia should make this kind of distinction between what is reasonable but not demonstrated and what is obviously factual.

Jallan 23:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you agree that the characters "correspond to each other" in particular stories?

I agree.

But, as a counter-example, Gutthorm as slayer of Sigurð corresponds to Hagen as slayer of Siegfried, though Norse Gutthorm obviously is not Germanic Hagen but is Germanic Gernot and Germanic Hagen is not Norse Gutthorm but is Norse Högni. Characters become confused, plots become confused, and motifs drift. Story tellers don't remember properly or they make purposeful changes as wildly and erratically as film adaptors do when adapting a novel or doing a remake of a previous film. Is the Brunhild of the Nibelungenlied to be equated with Norse Sigrdrifa? It is reasonable that a Geatish lord who had some dealings with the Danish ruling house and whose name might have appeared in old poems with some reminiscences of his deeds (both historical and legendary) might be mistaken in later Scandinavian tradition to be one of Hrólf Kraki's champions and provided with a different back story. (Compare the northern British 7th century historical Owein son of Urien who appears in later Arthurian romances as a prominent Arthurian knight.) But it is just as reasonable and very common that something related about one hero is adapted and told of another. When Welsh story tellers took French tales of Arthur and adapted them into Welsh they often substituted names familiar from Welsh tradition for those used in the French tales. The last of Arthur's companions to depart from him is St. Cynwyl in the Welsh "Culhwch and Olwen", Girflet son of Dou in French prose Arthurian romances, and Bedivere according to the English stanzaic Morte Arthure and in Malory. But St. Cynwyl, Girflet, and Bedivere are certainly not all the same persons in origin. I have encountered the hypothesis that Bedivere/Bedwyr is to be equated with Bödvar Bjarki! One encounters numerous such hypotheses in which any similarities between legendary characters are taken to prove identity. The Beowulf/Bjarki hypothesis has more going for it than many. I don't find it overly tenuous. But it should not be stretched.

For example, I've modified claims about Bödvar Bjarki's aiding Adils against Áli in Hrólf Kraki's saga because nothing of the kind appears in that work. That was a false reference. I don't have at hand a translation of the epitome to the Skjöldunga saga and I don't remember if it appears there. It does appears in Snorri's Skáldskaparmál which may be the only occurrence in extant sources (and like as not Snorri got it from the Skjöldunga saga which Snorri cites in the Ynglinga saga). The hypothesis should certainly be stated in Wikipedia articles of course. It well known, believed by many, and by many more accepted as likely enough to be true but not proved. But I think it was overstated in many Wikipedia articles and in my opinion it is often mentioned in places where it doesn't come in naturally.

Jallan 00:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On diacritics and spellings

BTW, I appreciate your edits, but don't the diacritics make it harder for non scholars to search the names?

I don't plan to do very much more of this name-fixing for a while, except casually. The forms Rolfand Roar particularly bothered me, as in all three English translations of the Hrólf Kraki Saga that I know of, the names appear as Hrolf and Hroar. We had tentatively decided to go with diacritics in the suggested conventions so I also added the acute accent. I don't think searching should be a problem. Titles of articles which have diacritics should almost always have a redirect entry without the diacritics. Normally this is done. You don't have to use diacritics to find French names, for example, because people have put in the appropriate rediects, so that I can get to Molière by typing moliere. Searching is a greater problem. If I search for moliere by using the Wikipedia built-in native search I find nothing. However using either the built-in Google search or the built-in Yahoo search with moliere produces many entries for articles containing Molière because these search engines are diacritic-insensitive. So diacritics are a relatively minor problem. Difference of base letters is a worse problem. Ignoring diacritics, we have such variants as Hœnir, Hoenir, Hænir, Haenir, Honir, Hone all easily found in English sources available to me. Possibly other variants exist. It seems to me that the only way to deal with such variations (including diacritic variations) is by listing variant spellings at the end of an article, as is often done now. But the practice might be extended to also sometimes include variant spellings for names that are not the same as the article name but which are prominent in the article. That allows the Wikipedia internal search to find main articles about persons or places or things beyond just those in which the form appears in the title and to use any reasonable spelling to do so. And once in one of those articles, the user will know which form should be the standard one to search on to find minor mentions in other articles (if standardization ever gets completed). This is a mess! But it can't be helped. We sometimes have different original spellings in Old Norse texts. Normalization is sometimes to a theoretic standardized Old Norse and sometimes to modern Icelandic. Not everyone uses exactly the same normalization rules for edge cases. And for such normalized forms there are various different systems for representing them in English. There are also forms found in Latin texts rendered in different ways in various English translations. Even experienced scholars have trouble knowing what form to search in a printed index. There's nothing for it (no matter what conventions are chosen for Wikipedia) but to include more and more spelling variations within articles and to add more and more forms that have been missed and to add them as redirects when appropriate and as alternate forms in articles when appropriate. We do want anyone using an English translation of an Old Norse work or reading a discussion in English that contains Old Norse forms to be able to enter any of the forms they find, without diacritics or with diacritics, and end up with at least one appropriate article if such an article exists.

But if you now think worse of using diacritics, then you can reopen discussion on that point.

Jallan 00:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gautar, Götar and Geats

I think Wikipedia should continue to refer to Geats where the texts say Geats, to refer to Jutes where the texts say Jutes, and refer to Gautar or Gauts where the texts say Gautar. That is generally what texts in English do, just as, for example, they speak of Scyldings in Old English context but speak of Skjöldungs when summarizing Norse traditions. And, where relevant, English texts throw in mentions that English Woden is identical to Norse Óðinn/Odin, that English Scyldingas are identical to Norse Skjöldungar, and that English Géatas are by most taken to be identical with Norse Gautar. I do think Geats and Gauts are identical and that those who say otherwise indulge in much special pleading. But ... let the arguments speak for themselves rather than attempting to standardize on either Geats or Gauts/Gautar in Wikipedia when this is not done outside. Internal links means arguments supporting the identity of Geats and Gauts should be only one click away. Similarly I don't see any need to standardize on either Gautland or Götaland, since both forms are used. That the article itself as at Götaland, a modern form, is sensible. That the article Götaland currently states the identity of Geats and Gauts as factual seems to be too POV. This is a place for "probably" or "by most" to be inserted along with a note to check Geats for a full discussion.

See also Redundant Ethnogenesis in Beowulf which traces attempts to equate Geats and Jutes to Old English times. (The article as a whole has some flaws, but it is accurate, I believe, in its contention that the identification of Geats with Jutes is not new. But some don't realize or don't want it to be realized that bogus historiography was as prevelant in medieval times and ancient times as it is now, which this articles does make clear, despite some flaws.)

Jallan 22:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ynglings, Geats, Goths and so forth

Speaking of names, I think the name of the article House of Yngling might be better changed to Yngling. I don't believe phrases of the House of .... kind occur in Old Norse texts and the singular form Yngling in such a phrase sounds like it refers to a single person, which it doesn't. The article speaks about those who were considered to be Ynglings, just as what is now the Scylding article speaks of those considered (at least in some texts) to be Scyldings/Skjöldungs. Generally Wikipedia policy is that the singular form of both proper and common nouns should be used in article names, not the plural forms. There is a dicussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions in respect to Tatars versus Tatar which makes sense to me. And I don't believe anything that could be reasonably translated as "House of Ynglings" occurs either in Old Norse texts. One shouldn't be inventing such phrases.

Likewise, the article Geats should be renamed to Geat, Swedes to Swede and so forth, except possibly in cases such as Goths and Jutes where articles on the singular form with another meaning also exists. But even there I'd prefer Goth (people) and Jute (people) or something similar to be consistent. Or rather the current Goth article should be renamed to Goth (subculture) or something similar as the name is a derivation of Goth referring via so-called Gothic literature via so-called Gothic architecture to supposed Germanic and Gothic influence. That would involve a large number of link changes, but I note there are already some links to the current article Goth that should be to current article Goths. And the sooner changed the less work to do. Let me know what you think.

Jallan 22:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yngling

I agree that the supposed rule that names should be in the singular seems to be broken very often in respect to national names and tribal names, possibly correctly on further thinking on the matter. In English in many cases ethnic names are adjectival in formation and the singular form is does not refer only to people. That is, Roman means anything pertaining to Rome, whereas Romans can only mean the Roman people. I note that the Tatars article is now so named, not Tatar and so for most nationalities and peoples. I think I will even "be bold" and make a note to that effect in the Wikipedia standards. I could even be persuade to make Scylding into Scyldings. However, Scottish clan names appear here in the singular, that is MacDonald rather than MacDonalds. Accordingly let's adopt the convention that such Scandinavian clan names or family names (and Germanic clan names and family names) are to appear in the singular when they are the names of entries, as is already the case with Scylding and Scylfing (though the latter is now only a redirect).

I don't agree with identifying Scylfing with Yngling that is with moving all the information on the Ynglings in general to Scylfing. Snorri in the Skáldskaparmál lists the kindreds as separate and we simply don't know enough about the original use of such names to understand what original meaning they may have had. Possibly, to spin one hypothesis, Scylding was an actual dynastic name while Yngling was originally a more general name referring to the kings of Sweden as servants and supports of Ingvi. Or originally they referred to two separate dynasties of Swedish kings, but the name of the first dynasty came to bealso used of the second (perhaps because of intermarriage such as often occurs to secure one's position so that the second dynasty became entitled, at least according to poets desirous of royal favor, to the name of the previous dynasty). Or the second name also became used for earlier dynasties because later poets forgot the original dictinctions so that titles earlier applicable to only some legendary kings of Sweden were likely to be more and more used of any king of Sweden.

Jallan 16:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since the dinghy type Yngling does seem to have the vast majority of the hits on Google for Yngling OR Ynglings OR Ynglingas and is not in origin related to that name, it does deserve the primary entry. I suggest Yngling (kindred) as a reasonable disambiguating name. Other possibilities are Yngling (family) or Yngling (lineage). But I think Yngling (kindred) better matches in nuance the usage of such names, though as Snorri and others have pointed out, these names are sometimes used as general terms meaning one of high birth, regardless of actual family, perhaps on the basis of kenning substitution, but perhaps also because many of these were in origin more general terms and never were altogether restricted to referring only to those of a single clan which had adopted the name heraldically.

The use of "???" seems to suggest too much doubt and also to be overlacking in formality. Simply say "Gauts (normally taken to be the Geats of Old English texts)" in a very few cases where the matter is pertinent. We shouldn't be consantantly reminding people again and again and again and again that Gautar are normally taken to be the same as Geats, any more than every mention of "the Irish" should be changed to "the Irish (Gaels)" and every mention of "the Gaels" should be changed to "the Gaels (Irish)" and every mention of Scots should mention that most scholars don't believe they have anything to do with the Scyths.

Whether Gautar are identical with the Geats in Beowulf is of no relevance to most mentions of Gauts in Old Norse texts and doesn't belong in those discussions. Anyone who wants to know more about Gauts or Geats or Gaels or Franks or Cymry or Danskers or Gewissi or Scots and so forth, should be able to find that information by clicking on a link from the first reference in the article and there find information as what other names they are called by and their relations to other folk and further theories, whether dubious theories or not. Similarly, we would not want every mention of Balder to repeat Snorri's contention that Balder was identical with Bældæg or every mention of Gunnar, or even every article mentioning Gunnar, to repeat the same information again and again that Gunnar is called Gunther in German tradition and Gunadahari in the Burgundian laws. That information belongs only in the main article on Gunther or Gunnar. And there should probably be only one such article, probably under the Gunther name since the Nibelung tales originally relate to Worms and the Rhineland and to Germany and are imports into Scandinavia. (It is a different matter with the Völsung tales to which the story of Sigurðr/Siegfried is attached in Norse texts and which, other than a single episode in Beowulf, are not found outside of Norse texts.)

Jallan 16:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion

Hej Wigleif! Noterade att du var den som eddat på sidan Sol innan jag gorde det vilket var kul =) Jag menar, hur många är det inte som skriver här. Den skandinaviska invasionen av den anglosaxiska världen har ännu inte upphört =) // Solkoll 21:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For you who only speak english: The WIKIng invasion continues =) // Solkoll 21:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yngling again

Since there is no obvious alternative name for the house of Yngling, I'd vote for keeping it as it is. One possibility could be Yngling (clan).

I don't think clan would work. I don't recall it ever being used in English translations, probably because there's nothing particularly like a clan in the old accounts, no word corresponding in Old English or Old Norse. Brodeur does use house, for example from the Skáldskapamál:

Of the Niflung's house was Gjúki; of the house of Ödlings, Kjárr; of the house of the Ylfings was Eiríkr the Wise in Speech. These also are illustrious royal houses: from Yngvi, the Ynglings are descended; from Skjöldr in Denmark, the Skjöldungs are come; from Völsungr in the land of Franks, those who are called Völsungs. One war-king was named Skelfir; and his house is called the House of Skilfings: his kindred is in the Eastern Region.

Faulke's recent translation uses line instead:

From the Niflung line came Giuki; from the Odling line came Kiar; from the Ylfing line came Eirik the Eloquent. The following are also great kings' lines: from Yngvi, whom the Ynglings are descended from; from Skiold in Denmark, whom the Skioldungs are descended from; from Volsung in Francia, they are called Volsungs. There was a war-king called Skelfir, and his descendants are known as the Skilfing line. Their family is in eastern lands.

For 'line' one would probably want to use 'lineage' in a heading.

From these two translations I get the following possibilities: Yngling (house), Yngling (kindred), Yngling (lineage), Yngling (family).

Normally we want to put the base word of an article title first, which is I think another problem with "House of Yngling". It goes against normal encyclopedia heading style. Also, it feels like a title that might be used for a post-medieval family after hereditary surnames had come into vogue. Yngling and Scylding and so forth are not quite the same thing as hereditary surnames. But saying "House of Yngling" rather than "House of the Ynglings" seems to put that spin on it. Compare William Morris' book title "The House of the Wolfings". "The House of Wolfing" would sound too modern, calling up visions of a house in a place named Wolfing or a vanity genealogy of the Victorian Wolfing family or the house of a man named Wolfing or a family descended from an ancestor named Wolfing. Morris had to use the plural form here to get the correct tone.

"House of Yngling" just doesn't work, nor would "House of Scylding", or "House of Nibelung". With something like "House of Tudor" we are in comparatively modern times. If Yngling were a place it would work. But "Yngling" is not a place. There is no "House of Uppsala" or "House of Lejre". Or if "Yngling" were the ancestor it would work. "House of Yngvi" would work. But don't want that, even though something like "member of the House of Yngvi" is what "Yngling" was understood to mean, at least in Snorri's day. But "House of Yngling" makes it sound as though the ancestor was named "Yngling".

Edgar Alan Poe wrote "The Fall of the House of Usher", but here he was speaking of a physical house.

Jallan 01:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't insist on calling them the Yngling (clan). The names Yngling (dynasty), Yngling (line) or Ynling (lineage) would work fine.

I don't like dynasty, as there would then be at least two Yngling dynasties, one in Sweden and a later one in Norway and it seems to me better that we go with a more general usage. And some of these names are not particularly connected with what we would quite call a dynasty. So I wll accept lineage, since line outside of an obvious genealogical context is more likely to suggest geometry, e.g. an Yngling (line) might sound like a particular type of curved line originally defined and named by a mathematician named Yngling. So I'll make the changes if you don't get to it first. (I have some other things to do that I will be giving priority to.) And I will clean up all redirects and links to fit. I don't think there are likely to be any more lineage articles beyond Scylding, Yngling (lineage) and Scylfing, except possibly Nibelung and Völsung. But here the characters attached to these lineages are mostly themselves so important that articles on the lineages are likely to prove superflous. Jallan 21:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jorvik, Dyflin, et al

How are we supposed to create the articles on the viking royal houses of York and Dublin? What are we supposed to call them? I really appreciate your opinion Wiglaf. Kenneth Alanson 12:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think House of should work fine in the context.--Wiglaf 12:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I mean in the manner of Norse clans. There is already the House of York by Edmund of Langley. Kenneth Alanson 13:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the founder was called Halfdan, try House of Halfdan.--Wiglaf 13:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you aware of any "-ing" names for this phenomena? Kenneth Alanson 13:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you could theoretically take a name and add an -ing or an -ung suffix. However, I don't do this, and I stay with attested names. There are for instance umlauts: Ulf + ing = Ylfing, and other changes: Yngvi + ing = Yngling.--Wiglaf 13:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What if I find a source or a few with such a name? Do I use it as primary or include it amongst other data in the article? Gunnar Olsen 13:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It depends. If you're writing a biography, I think you can add the name among the other data. If you write about the family line, you could have it as the name of the article.--Wiglaf 13:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...And then really just put the focus on their lands(with their capitol of course designating their seats of power), correct? Gunnar Olsen 13:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd only do this if the information is well-founded in encyclopedias and primary sources.--Wiglaf 13:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not the New Age craze, I take it...teehee:) Gunnar Olsen 14:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jutish & Geatish Vikings? Also Danish Emigration.

Hey Wiglaf, have you ever seen accounts of Jutes or Geats taking part in the Viking emigration, or are they likely conglomerated with the Danes and Swedes? Were those two tribes merely part of the Volkerwanderung and not existant in that day? At present, I'm trying to finger the Scanian Danes as having taken part of the Danelaw in England, with the "Danes" in Jutland having taken to the foundation of Normandy along with settlement in Brittany. I also have it that the Danish islanders were the ones who took to Dublin, the Isle of Man, Galloway and Cumbria. It looks like South Wales too by this map I have of Danish place name concentrations. From what I can tell, these are the simplest and easiest routes to be taken for their operations in that time and day. The Scanians having taken to the North Sea, Jutlanders taken to the English Channel and the islanders taken to the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea. Please tell me whether that makes sense or not, because I want the articles to make sense. Gunnar Olsen 15:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that the Jutlanders and the Scanians took part in the same movement as the other Danes. I don't think it is possible to be more specific about their movements. If you want to do research on a Geatish viking you could study this one: Skoglar Toste.--Wiglaf 19:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that enlightening insight!:) I know that the Norse focused on the Gaelic(Ireland/Scotland/Iceland/Man/Greenland) areas while the Danes focused on the Brythonic(England/Wales/Normandy/Brittany/Cornwall) ones. I've seen direct allusions to it far many more times than otherwise, with the Swedes mostly coordinating with the Norse while Geats with the Danes. Is this a fairly established pattern, in your opinion? Is this broad statement fair? Kani Olsen 02:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard that Geats coordinated with the Danes while the Swedes coordinated with the Norwegians before. I don't think that there was much coordination going on.--Wiglaf 17:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mean as a convenient matter of course. Most sources show continued relations to Danes in Geatish affairs(Beowulf), as opposed to with Norse. Then also, it is less often to find Swedes of the Uppland oriented to the happenings of Danes in Sjaelland or Jylland as opposed to Norse in Oppland or Ostfold(due to Vaarmland's foundations as a royal exodus westwards from Uppland). This separation of geographical association stalled the unification of Sweden for several centuries, if I'm not mistaken. It's also relative to the differences of speech between the three countries today, such as how each translates other languages. Does this make more sense to you now? Køn Olsen 19:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is all new to me.--Wiglaf 15:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It may seem simplistic, yet my chief source for this is very detailed in the whereabouts of the settlements of each tribal state during these times and I trust it a lot. It seems comprehensive enough to understand as likely, based on placename evidence and the geographical orientation of the respective lands from which the vikings sprang. Are you denying that I should write articles delineating the placename orientation differentiating the Norse and Danish in their emigration? That would be like denying the difference between Mexican and Caribbean immigration to the USA. Køn Olsen 17:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, but I'd prefer you to be specific about from which country a specific type of place name came, such as -toft which was Danish.--Wiglaf 18:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yet there is a problem for the -by placename which is from all three present day Scandinavian countries. I'm sure other similar problems exist based on this automatically attributing a placename form via solely one nation vs another. Køn Olsen 22:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Icelandic names

Hi again. As a fellow Nordic, but a continental one, I wonder if you could give me input about the treatment of Icelandic names. I just edited the article Einar Benediktsson, an Icelandic poet and changed references to him in the article from Benediktsson to Einar. That is the proper way in Icelandic. Now, in an English article, should one give the patronymic, which in Icelandic is just plain silly, or the given name, which is what we do, but contrasts with the English way of reference? (The Wikipedia follows the local conventions in several cases, for instance referring to Archimedes instead of A. son of whoever.) Cheers Io 17:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't mind at all that you use the first name. However, as the name is so obviously a Western name, the use of the first name will only give the reader an impression of familiar style, as if an article on George Bush calls him George. So to most readers you'll only have changed the style of the text.--Wiglaf 20:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Wiglaf! I got your note. There are some scholars, notably George E. Mendenhall from the University of Michigan, who believe the Etruscans migrated from Anatolia or perhaps north Syria before or during the 12th century BC and may have been related to the (original) Hattics or perhaps the Hurrians. The Greek script descended from the Semitic as well, and we don't really know if the Etruscans adopted theirs at the same time as the Greeks or from the Greeks. The Lepontics probably borrowed their script from the neighbouring Rhaetics and Venetics, although there was a widespread Celtic tribe known as the Venetii. Regardless, I trust you to edit as you see fit, I know that the period we are talking about is one for which we do not have much reliable information, just the diverse opinions of sundry academics. Cheers, Fire Star 21:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Viking

Wiglaf, I have been bullied away from the article by Sjc (who went on to rant at me on my talk page). I have better things to do than to haggle with him, but I would be sorry to see you stay away from the article, too. The current intro is not terrible, but contains still many inaccuracies, and if it is left to sjc, it will develop into a rant in unreadable prose against imagined revisionists and "lurid accounts". "The vikings or Varangians were traders" is still terrible, and "Other names include Danes, Northmen, Norsemen and Normans." is just sad and "the Viking people" simply uninformed. Since Sjc said, "I am more than happy for Wiglaf to work on the intro", I would encourage you to do just that. However, I will now "unwatch" the article. regards, dab 08:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are many people at Wikipedia, and in due time texts are polished up – it's okay, thanks. (I need a break myself) I was just addressing you because you volunteered to do it, but I can see it could be a taxing job. cheers, dab 08:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Norse mythology

  • Halló Wiglaf, I found you at the history of Norse mythology and would like to say hello. At de:Benutzer:Gangleri I mentioned (in German) different meanings of the user name Gangleri which I normaly use. I still have to investigate about the magazine from Iceland having that name. Hope to be able to get a picture from Gylfafinning which shows king Gylfi and is used at [1] and [2].
  • In bugzilla:660 I have explained some problems related to Norse saga.
  • Because you mention your interest about Jewish culture. At the moment I could not find anything about Jivo transcription. There are some pages in this transcription on the web. Best regards Gangleri 22:05, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
Hello, nice to meet you. I see that you like working with Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 21:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Wiglaf, yes I started to read about Norse mythology since 1994 and like Wikipedia because of the open manner information is used, exchenged, updated. I am examining a problem with invalid links created by you in the past. See meta:User:Gangleri/remarks#Strategies. Please send me your e-mail using "E-mail this user" at Gangleri . Thanks in advance Gangleri 23:02, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Quitting

I'm in a situation similars to yours (thesis to finish, hampered by WP addiction). I never meant to say I was quitting, though. Just trying to cut the daily dose :) dab 18:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Greetings Wiglaf,

Here is a link to a map of results for the distribution of different genetic haplogroups across Europe. Some think that it could represent evidence of actual migration patterns in pre-historical and historical periods. This isn't germane to any current discussion, I only thought you may find it interesting!

http://baz.perlmonk.org/haplogroups.jpg

Cheers, Fire Star 15:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Björn Björnsson

Blanking an article is not a proper method of deleting it. If you want to delete and article list it on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion or if it was complete garbage list it on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions with an explanation.. If it was merely misnamed then move it to the correct spelling. - SimonP 06:34, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)