Talk:Eric I of Denmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

He is the attributed founder of the St. Michael's nunnery in Reval (now Tallinn, Estonia), 1093.

Peter Frisk

Ejegod doesnt mean "Evergood". If anything, it translates to something like "Kind" or "Goodhearted". --dllu 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. If you think WP:NCNT should be changed to accommodate cases like this, then it should really be discussed on a wider scale. —harej (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Eric I of Denmark → Eric the Good — This article should be moved to Eric the Good (over redirect) per WP:COMMONNAME. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns, which states: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England". Looking over the article I see nothing to support consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, so it looks to me that the page is in the proper location right now. That a redirect exists from the version using his cognomin actually further erodes the case to move the page, since either page leads to the same content. If there is in fact consensus that "Eric the Good" unambiguously refers to the subject of this article, then that should already be established in the article (through text and especially referencing).
— V = I * R (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existance of a redirect in any way erodes the argument. That is a mild form of the argument that article names don't matter, the extreme of which is the argument for using random strings for article locations. Placing articles at the most appropriate search term makes navigation of the wiki easier for users, and this is the principle behind WP:COMMONNAME. I would be interested in finding out whether anyone can find reliable sources (history books, reference books, etc.) referring to somebody else as "Eric the Good". If the name has ambiguity, that is something else to consider, and could be an overriding argument. But at the same time, I don't think we should presume ambiguity because it looks like a name that could be ambiguous. I'm certainly willing to abide consensus, and I have raised the question in this way precisely to find out if a consensus one way or another can be determined. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been unable to find any evidence of another "Eric the Good" that would make that article name ambiguous. The one and only mention I have found of any other "Eric the Good" is a fictional character in a 2004 fantasy fiction titled Heroics for Beginners by John Moore. Please note the following search results:
I would say this supports my suggestion that "Eric I of Denmark" is nearly useless as a search term, despite the appearance of notability. In fact, the name "Eric I of Denmark" appears virtually nonexistent outside WP. Sovereigns of the era simply have not been known by such names. They have always borne their cognomens as disambiguators, and the use of ordinals came much later. Does anyone have a reason not to make the move to "Eric the Good"? I see no reason not to save the reader having to use the redirect to get to the article's content. A redirect will surely exist leading from "Eric I of Denmark" to "Eric the Good". Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're essentially making the consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, WP:COMMONNAMES stance, then. I don't particularly have an issue with that, except for one little sticking point. The single, immediately verifiable Reuters reference that is in the article uses "Erik I of Denmar". What non-academic, general sources use is the primary determiner for article title issues. Keep in mind that the more correct "Eric the Good", "Erik the Good", etc... names should be mentioned and bolded, in the first sentence, with explanations that they are the more correct names. The body text uses throughout Wikipedia could easily be changed as well. The title of the article needs to remain in it's current state though, unless and until "normal sources" begin using a different name form.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These google results are unconvincing. Eric I of Denmark is not the title in its own right, but a disambiguator for Eric I or Erik I. As such, the google searches seem flawed. What I'd really like to see are what he is called in standard works in English about medieval Danish history. I have at hand the Shorter Cabmridge Medieval History, which is from 1952, and calls him "Eric the Evergood." Could we find what other reliable sources of this sort use? john k (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, those facts, along with the accompanying references, really need to be included in the article. Don't worry about formatting or anything, if that's a concern, just add a sentence stating exactly what you just stated here, into the article body (one of the great things about collaboration is that there will be others who come along and can help).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohms law (talk • contribs)
I do see your (plural) points, and I would say just because there are several good sources out there that we are not using yet (I notice the article is woefully underdeveloped and underreferenced) doesn't mean we should keep a dysfunctional article name, we just need to improve the article's content as well as choosing the best name. To that end, I've added some information and some references to the lead, and I will work on it some more as I have time over the weekend. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canonization[edit]

Were there any attempts to canonize him like his son and brother?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother[edit]

The article states that his mother was Gunnhildr Sveinsdóttir but she only had one child with Sweyn II of Denmark and that was a short-lived boy, not Eric I. Gunnhildr's only other child was Princess Gyda Anundsdóttir of Sweden, her child with Anund Jacob of Sweden.

The article on Sweyn II says that he only had one legitimate child. So I question the matrilineal lineage here. I'm going to strike it. Iamvered (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_I_of_Denmark&oldid=1207127497"