Talk:John, King of Denmark

message: "In 1509, with the Netherlands acting as arbiters, Sweden agreed to a declaration which recognised Hans as king of Sweden in principle [...]"
I'm not sure who or what is referred to with 'the Netherlands' here, but no such thing existed in 1509. Csprrr (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Netherlands in 1509? 

message: I don't like how the article looks because there's a big block of white space between the third and fourth paragraphs. I think the table code should be moved back to where it was in the middle of the sentence before to compensate for this.--Primetime 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not neccesary, see how it looks now. /Grillo 03:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? I don't like the white space. There's too much.--Primetime 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly where do you see whitespace? After Da3d's edit, it's gone. If you still see it, clean your cache. /Grillo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha, you use Internet Explorer, stupid IE... Don't put the code back into the sentence though! Better with a little whitespace than how it looked in Opera before, then the table was left of the image and the text was extremely narrow. /Grillo 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Moving the table to the top (or maybe the code conversion) at 03:53, 24 April seems to have fixed it. Sorry about that. Looks great now.--Primetime 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the table at the top fixed the whitespace issue, apparently IE doesn't like having it anywhere else. Of course, the image is also much further down, but that will at least not impact the reading. --Da3d 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Shouldn't the article name be John of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (remove the last comma)? /Grillo 04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to refer to him as "John of Denmark" in other articles. As to whether a kingdom was the main kingdom, all the Kalmar monarchs primarily resided in Denmark.  The later monarchs who were kings of Denmark and Norway are listed at Christian III of Denmark, and so forth.  James I of England was King of both England and Scotland, but we only list England in his article title.  &c. john k 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the copy-and-paste moves, I'm still learning the rules of Wikipedia.I still think Christian I and Christian II were better article names, for the sake of brevity plus historical correctness. Christian III, mentioned by John Kenney, actually eliminated the status of Norway as a separate kingdom, so in his case, it is less problematic to refer to him as Christian III of Denmark.As for king John, he has AFAIK never been referred to as "John I" in Danish historiography. I can see the point in the disambiguation argument of Shilkanni, but I would suggest another solution. In recent textbooks (e.g. A History of Scandinavia by T.K. Derry (1979), Medieval Scandinavia by Sawyer & Sawyer (1993), and Cambridge History of Scandinavia, vol. 1 (2003), he is always referred to under his Scandinavian name, Hans. The Britannica 2002, while keeping "John" as their main entry, does the same in some of its historical articles. If would therefore suggest Hans (union king) as the main entry in Wikipedia, thereby facilitating for many users who have met him through these or other historical books. Anders Fröjmark 14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: John I of Denmark (or Hans I of Denmark) would be convention. Ferdinand II of Aragon is referred to as such, even though he was also king of Castille, Sicily, Naples, etc. etc. Valentinian (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd only seen him called Hans before (in various books in English) but Encyclopaedia Britannica does call him John.  Seems weird but <shrug>.... --Zeborah 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would support a move to "Hans".  john k 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never seen "John" before either. If he had been called "Johan" or "Johannes" I would understand it, but seeing "Hans" changed to "John" is just utterly confusing.--Barend 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: To quote wikipedia naming conventions:
"Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. The use of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. For example, William I of England, not William of England, as William II of England and William III of England hold the same monarchical name."
There has only been John/Hans of Denmark. I therefore suggest, in keeping with wikipedia naming conventions, to move the article to John of Denmark. The ordinal is not commonly used in historical litterature for this monarch, nor is it in keeping with wikipedia naming conventions to do so. 
A different question is whether his name should also be changed to Hans. I would definitely support this as well, but can see that this will probably generate more debate. The removal of the inappropriate ordinal, however, should not be problematic.
--Barend--129.177.169.26 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is called Hans in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. This "John-stuff" seems very foreign for us Norse, but maybe he is called that in Anglosaxia! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this discussion I have requested a move to Hans of Denmark and removed this John stuff and replaced with his real name. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page, please check for double redirects. I've fixed John II of Sweden; I'm assuming is the same person, correct me if I'm wrong! Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest move to John of Denmark 

message: So after all this discussion about the name of the article, how has it been moved from John of Denmark to John, King of Denmark seemingly with no discussion at all? Confusing and counterintuitive.--Barend (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are using a few moves on other articles as the basis for a rule that all articles like this don't need any discussion. I still personally think every one should still be put through the move request first.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name, again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John, King of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231000028/http://www.blekingemuseum.se/01_12griffen.asp to http://www.blekingemuseum.se/01_12griffen.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John, King of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701012404/http://www.danskekonger.dk/biografi/Hans.html to http://www.danskekonger.dk/biografi/Hans.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: thumb|50px|right
Looks like we have an edit war being cooked up here. The question is whether or not an altar piece likeness famous for looking just like King John (left), even if a bit posthumous, is better to use at the top of the article, where it has been for many years, or whether a grave monument sculpture bearing hardly any likeness to anyone (right) should replace the good likeness, with that likeness removed from the article completely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I will restore the more useful altar piece portrait (left) unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. Wrote to the reverting user about edit-warring & that we use talk pages, not warfare. Disregarded & deleted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Apparently, that user will not communicate about  edit-warring and article talk pages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Image war?

message: He had a well-known grandson who also was John of Denmark. Should have been discussed. Now needs a hatnote at least. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved without discussion

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved.  estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on. April 2021 is when Prince Philip died, so again the patrilineal ancestry. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 August 2023