This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ragnar Lodbrok article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 28, 2004, March 28, 2005, March 28, 2006, March 28, 2007, and March 28, 2008. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is an infobox supposed to have facts? If so we are in big trouble here with offspring and children given according to old fantasy tales and new TV fiction, including a wife called Lady Gertha or someting like that (wide variety of her fictitios names apparently), who probably never existed at all. Anyone mind if I take an ax to some of that? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The questions here are:
Response to third opinion request: |
Templates are not just display tools, they have semantic meaning as well. The template closest to the subject should be used in each case, and where none can be found, a new one should be created. In this case there's already an suitable template available - Template:Infobox character. As for the details: if RS state a mythical character had a family, list its members. Remember the infobox is meant to summarize information, and exercise editorial discretion: If there are several myths mentioning a multitude of characters, not all of them should be listed; prefer the "central", most common or most notable myths or characters and only list them. François Robere ( talk) 19:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
Comment: I guess you could look at the infoboxes used in for example game of thrones characters. Infobox character and add them to the legendary Kings of the house of Munsö then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.34.13 ( talk) 11:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
a fringe opinion of one woman does not constitute a new precedent in academia. His children, for example, didn't sprout out of the ground.. their father isn't "supposed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truculentt ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I haven't. I've simply removed ambiguous references. Truculentt ( talk) 20:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a hoax, right? Veery funny. However, I'm not sure what the sentence was before that (on mobile), so can pls someone undo that? Right in the introduction. Mike F2 Mike F ( talk) 03:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I posted this elsewhere but i will now post it here. SergeWoodzing has removed succession from all the prehistoric kings just with no real reasoning. He takes the highhorse position and says he has the authority to to do so and doesn't elaborate as to why, just that it "is silly".
By that logic literally all the other legendary kings of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would have to be edited as well as ALL legendary kings of Europe, good luck getting that done. Eysteinn Beli and so forth all have this form of succession. It's just to provide a easier understanding of the supposed timeline. Henceforth why it says "legendary title". Not normal kingship. This is incredibly petty and silly. There was kings in Scandinavia long before it there were united countries, it almost feels like you're trying to erase that fact.
SergeWoodzing's fixation on trying to remove the concept of succession from the protohistoric discussion just isn't right. I have stated that there is a difference between normal kingship and legendary such. The ones that are featured on the pages where we have collided are not as part of the normal Swedish monarch tradition of succession as it's clearly shown to be part of the "legendary" prehistoric discussion hence why it's called "legendary title" when it comes to succession. By your logic you would literally have to go to every single legendary monarch page in Europe and remove all forms of succession from the legendary discussion.
You cannot shape the narrative of history just because you don't like it, that has nothing to do with warring. Stating that it would be warring is just trying to prevent other people from getting their opinions as to yours into the discussion. There was always a form of succession to these pages before you came along and no offense I'm not sure what your motive is as you aren't exactly elaborating. I won't undo what you've done further since i know you'll just throw a fit and i don't hate time for that, life is too short and Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Next time try to raise the discussion to a bit higher level instead of just getting mad and crying about me "warring" when you don't get as you want. It's childish and immature. -- Gaudi9223 ( talk) 14:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There wasn't a Holy Roman Empire before the 12th century! Frederic I. Barbarossa was the first ruler, who named his empire to be 'holy' because he struggled for supremacy over the papal demands for worldly power. Ragnar raided parts of the Frankish realms (or western parts of the Frankish Empire). 2A02:8071:2CD1:4200:952A:B642:60DC:6C94 ( talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I just rolled back 2 new unsourced edits where Ragnar was portrayed in a definite manner. Writing to editor. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ragnar Lodbrok article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 28, 2004, March 28, 2005, March 28, 2006, March 28, 2007, and March 28, 2008. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is an infobox supposed to have facts? If so we are in big trouble here with offspring and children given according to old fantasy tales and new TV fiction, including a wife called Lady Gertha or someting like that (wide variety of her fictitios names apparently), who probably never existed at all. Anyone mind if I take an ax to some of that? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The questions here are:
Response to third opinion request: |
Templates are not just display tools, they have semantic meaning as well. The template closest to the subject should be used in each case, and where none can be found, a new one should be created. In this case there's already an suitable template available - Template:Infobox character. As for the details: if RS state a mythical character had a family, list its members. Remember the infobox is meant to summarize information, and exercise editorial discretion: If there are several myths mentioning a multitude of characters, not all of them should be listed; prefer the "central", most common or most notable myths or characters and only list them. François Robere ( talk) 19:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC) |
Comment: I guess you could look at the infoboxes used in for example game of thrones characters. Infobox character and add them to the legendary Kings of the house of Munsö then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.34.13 ( talk) 11:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
a fringe opinion of one woman does not constitute a new precedent in academia. His children, for example, didn't sprout out of the ground.. their father isn't "supposed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truculentt ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I haven't. I've simply removed ambiguous references. Truculentt ( talk) 20:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a hoax, right? Veery funny. However, I'm not sure what the sentence was before that (on mobile), so can pls someone undo that? Right in the introduction. Mike F2 Mike F ( talk) 03:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I posted this elsewhere but i will now post it here. SergeWoodzing has removed succession from all the prehistoric kings just with no real reasoning. He takes the highhorse position and says he has the authority to to do so and doesn't elaborate as to why, just that it "is silly".
By that logic literally all the other legendary kings of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would have to be edited as well as ALL legendary kings of Europe, good luck getting that done. Eysteinn Beli and so forth all have this form of succession. It's just to provide a easier understanding of the supposed timeline. Henceforth why it says "legendary title". Not normal kingship. This is incredibly petty and silly. There was kings in Scandinavia long before it there were united countries, it almost feels like you're trying to erase that fact.
SergeWoodzing's fixation on trying to remove the concept of succession from the protohistoric discussion just isn't right. I have stated that there is a difference between normal kingship and legendary such. The ones that are featured on the pages where we have collided are not as part of the normal Swedish monarch tradition of succession as it's clearly shown to be part of the "legendary" prehistoric discussion hence why it's called "legendary title" when it comes to succession. By your logic you would literally have to go to every single legendary monarch page in Europe and remove all forms of succession from the legendary discussion.
You cannot shape the narrative of history just because you don't like it, that has nothing to do with warring. Stating that it would be warring is just trying to prevent other people from getting their opinions as to yours into the discussion. There was always a form of succession to these pages before you came along and no offense I'm not sure what your motive is as you aren't exactly elaborating. I won't undo what you've done further since i know you'll just throw a fit and i don't hate time for that, life is too short and Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Next time try to raise the discussion to a bit higher level instead of just getting mad and crying about me "warring" when you don't get as you want. It's childish and immature. -- Gaudi9223 ( talk) 14:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There wasn't a Holy Roman Empire before the 12th century! Frederic I. Barbarossa was the first ruler, who named his empire to be 'holy' because he struggled for supremacy over the papal demands for worldly power. Ragnar raided parts of the Frankish realms (or western parts of the Frankish Empire). 2A02:8071:2CD1:4200:952A:B642:60DC:6C94 ( talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I just rolled back 2 new unsourced edits where Ragnar was portrayed in a definite manner. Writing to editor. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)