# Talk:Augvald

This review is transcluded from Talk:Augvald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Name

I've been doing a bit of copyediting as I've been looking through the article, which I hope you don't mind. I wasn't quite sure about this though: "... some have further speculated that Augvald might have been identical with Harald Agdekonge." On the presumption that what's being said here is that they might be the same person, could we not drop the rather strangely phrased "might have been identical with" and simply say "was"?
Done.
Background

"Augvald was originally based with his throne at an otherwise unknown location called "Roga" in "Jøsursheid". Not quite sure what this is trying to say, as knowing a name tells us nothing about a location, so why "otherwise unknown"?
Done.
"Historian P. A. Munch believed this to be somewhere in the mountains between Rogaland and Telemark, based on that he found a place called Jøsureid in Kviteseid in western Telemark. In what sense did he find the place? On a map? Archaeologically?
I would think that P. A. Munch found the place on a map or through literature, but this is not said directly in the source I have. Thhist (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Aftermath

"Augvald's son Jøsur succeeded his father as king of Rogaland and parts of Hordaland". I can't but feel there's a bit of the story missing here. Ferking's just got the hump and eliminated Augvald in battle, yet he simply allows Augvald's son to carry on as normal?
Since Ferking was just a petty local king, he probably did not have the means or will to take over Augvald's large kingdom. Jøsur could thus easily have succeeded Augvald. As far as I can tell, the sources in any case don't describe this in details. Thhist (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Family tree

I think those tables would look better if they were centred.
If you can do the changes, I probably don't mind. Thhist (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
What about putting the tables side by side, as I've done. Is that OK with you? Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It's fine by me. I was never really happy with the formats I ended up with anyway, and putting the tables side by side is certainly more convenient for the reader. Thhist (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I also want to note that I have made two somewhat significant changes since last time; namely I've updated the map, and written a bit more on the dynasties following Augvald in the aftermath-section. Thhist (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
"Augvald's son Jøsur became king of Rogaland after his father's death, and (re)conquered parts of Hordaland". Why is it "(re)conquered"? Either he conquered it or he reconquered it surely? Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Since it belonged to Augvald before, he must have reconquered it. Thhist (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Augvald's possible kingdom (in red) largely coincides with sites connected to the archaeological 8th-century kingdom of the monarch from the Storhaug burial mound.[" You can't have an "archaeological kingdom". Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have reworded the caption as follows: "Augvald's possible kingdom (in red) largely coincides with sites connected to the 8th-century kingdom of the monarch from the Storhaug burial mound, identified through archaeological excavations. This lends credibility to saga accounts of sites integral to a contemporary kingdom." Thhist (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Augvald/CommentsTalk:Augvald/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 08:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@89.8.176.190: we are approaching WP:3RR. I agree that etymological history is important, and I do not contest inclusion of it, but editing it where you are doing so results in a broken sentence. It also seems strange that we are introducing a topic by immediately describing another topic. My preference would be that we move this content (which seems arguably covered anyway) down to the 'Name' section, but I would not contest it being covered elsewhere in the lead. Best, Darren-M talk 13:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)