Talk:Eric Bloodaxe

message: A fairly simple question: is Eric Bloodaxe sufficiently well-known by his epithet/cognomen to justify calling the article Eric Bloodaxe ? Eric/Eirik Bloodaxe apparently beats Eric/Eirik I handily on Google books. So, the question is, how overwhelmingly does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) actually demand before the exception reading "a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen" applies ? My superficial inquiry leads me to suppose that even sources which refer to "Eric I" mention "Eric Bloodaxe" whereas the far larger number which mention "Eric Bloodaxe" do not necessarily mention "Eric I". Seems overwhelming to me, but I'm biased. I imagine this is sufficiently controversial in any case that the requested move procedure would be in order. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Norwegian king before Haakon V Magnusson is primarly known by numeral, well until now when wiki has become the global policy maker Fornadan (t) 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia we are supposed to follow usage in other works and not to engage in exciting original research, so they say. If Harald Fairhair is better known as that, or Eric Bloodaxe in this case, that's what the articles should be called. It might be easier to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), but until then every case will need to be done on its merits. I assume that you would be in favour of Eric Bloodaxe or some similar title ? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 08:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The inflexibility of that convention has been annoying me for quite some time. Angus might remember the Orkney earls move marathon some months ago, and then there's Kristina of Norway and Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway. Magnus Eriksson has been moved around several times because it's not entirely obvious how many Swedish Magnuses there are, (Which resulted in Magnus Henriksen being moved to Magnus (II) of Sweden) (needs to stop ranting) Fornadan (t) 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to pitch in as well: Fornadan summarized it well: "No Norwegian king before Haakon V Magnusson is primarly known by numeral". Wikipedia is entirely unique, as far as I know, in naming Norwegian medieval kings in this way. But: Eric Bloodaxe is not any different from all the others in this respect. So, if he is moved, all the others up to Eric Magnusson should be moved as well. The advantage of the current naming convention is that it is reasonably unambiguous. If we start using cognomens, where should, for instance, Harald I of Norway go? Harald Fairhair, Harald Hairfair, Harald Finehair or Haraldr hárfagri? Still, this is a problem that could be solved with disambiguation pages, I guess. --Barend 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, I have asked a related question on Talk:Margaret of Sweden, Queen of Norway --Barend 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A different solution can be seen on the official webpage of the Norwegian royal family, . It is impossible to link straight to the relevant page, but if you go to this link, click on Monarkiet i Norge at the top left of the screen, and then on Kongerekken at bottom right. You will see the official list of kings. Eric is listed as Eirik I (Haraldsson) Blodøks. All the kings up to Christian I are listed with ordinal number and cognomen. This is the way it is commonly done in Norwegian encyclopedias as well.--Barend 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also the solution that can be seen in the index of The Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Sigo 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming ? Move ?

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Harald I of Norway regarding other requested move of early Norwegian kings. With the exception of what to call Harald Sigurdsson, I believe they are fairly uncontroversial. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other requested moves

message: Eric I of Norway → Eric Bloodaxe – Eric Bloodaxe (even discounting the hacker) wins overwhelmingly on Google books. Even Encarta use Eric Bloodaxe. Most results for plausible searches on Google books find a different "Eric I", Eric of Pomerania. Seems obvious and uncontroversial but the target has an edit history so it isn't a trivial move. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 12:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support obviously. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments.
The only problem I have with these names (Bloodaxe, Fairhair, etc.) is that they create inconsistencies which may (or may not) be more confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject matter than the current (rare) forms. Certainly I wouldn't expect the form "Eric I of Norway" to appear anywhere in the actual article, as "Eric Bloodaxe" would, but I am comfortable with the current titling. If it is changed, I won't complain (I may even be glad). Let me just if Google Books and like searches are really relevant? If I were writing a book, I would probably have little cause to use the form "Eric I of Norway," if I were encyclopaedist on the other hand... Srnec 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have been looking for a reference but I cannot find one, but am I the only person who remembers a heavy metal band called "Eric Bloodaxe's Squashed Bunnies" ?
Workersdreadnought 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's a fictional band name from the Steve Bell comic "If...". I remember reading that name decades ago in a compilation book entitled "If ...only again". There were a few strips with the theme of "Heavy Heavy Metal" (sic) on the radio, and one of the "featured" bands was "Eric Bloodaxe's Squashed Bunnies". There was a lot of "AYEEE!!! AYURRGGHHH!!! WHAMAWHAMAWHAMA!!!" in the strip which, I suppose, sums up Bell's notion of Heavy Metal music rather succinctly. :) Turb0flat4 (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: Has anyone read Clare Downham's piece on Eric in Medieval Scandinavia vol. 14? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eric Bloodaxe - axed? The Mystery of the Last Viking King of York" 

message: " ... in English almost always spelt Eric". For some reason this has been altered to " ... in English almost always spelled Eric". I am aware that I tend to be conservative in my use of English, and people who are more modern may not like the older "spelt", but personal taste is not a reason for changing another editor's writing. It does not really matter, and perhaps I should leave it alone to please the anonymous editor who changed it, but I have reverted it, because I feel that, in the absence of reason to the contrary, anything written in an accepted form of English should stay as it is.
JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this is a US versus British English thing.  Since he obviously has a much greater connection to Britain than the Americas (unless he sneaked off to Vineland at some stage), then WP:ENGVAR requires positive discrimination in favour of British English for this article.  FlagSteward (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "spelt" vs "spelled" 

message: Insanely interesting read but doesn't have any citations :( Jwh335 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The article lists him as dying in 952, but says he was killed at the battle of stainmore in 954. Erm? 151.196.49.88 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death ? 

message: The article begins with "Eric Haraldsson (Erik, anglicised form of Old Norse: Eiríkr;[1] died 954)". Yet immediately to the right is a coin on which the name "Eric Rex" is prominent. That seems to suggest that Eric wrote his name as "Eric", so how is that an anglicisation? Wouldn't it be more proper to say that his name is Eric Haraldsson, nicknamed Eric Bloodaxe, and known in Norway as Eirikr Haraldsson, similarly to how an article on Timisoara might mention that it is known in Hungarian as Temesvar? I believe it's Wikipedia policy that the subject in question gets to determine how his name is written (e.g. Mehmet Oz, in the argument about the accent mark) or what his nationality is (e.g. Pierce Brosnan, in the argument about whether he's Irish or Irish-American) or indeed any other personal detail. 166.161.133.47 (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That coin would have the abbreviated latin version of his name, Eric(us) Rex. As far as I know, we don't have any sources indicating that he called himself Eric Haraldsson. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it, thanks. 166.161.133.47 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicised name? 

message: Is the identification of Eric Bloodaxe with Eric of Northumbria so certain that there should only be a single article? I'm not so sure, any thoughts would be appreciated. Retroplum (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The section Sources makes it clear that the identification is not entirely certain, but that it is generally accepted by consensus of most scholars. In the terms of Wikipedia's policies, that justifies keeping it as one article: we go by what most respectable scholars say, even if there is a minority viewpoint which differs. However, we also  indicate that there is some doubt, as the article quite rightly does. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Retroplum (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Just noticed in another article someone used this as a ref:  Footnote 48 notes Downham and Eric.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, reading that was what made me question how secure this identification was and is. Just wasn't too sure if Downham's hypothesis was a minority view or an idea which has been around for a long time. Retroplum (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is true any longer that there is consensus about the two Erics being the same. A lot of the scholars who write about it just haven't engaged with/ are aware of Downham's argument, but those who have seem to think that her case was good. This article is very long anyway, we can have separate articles for Eric of York who only appears in England in contemporary sources and the literary character Erik Bloodaxe in later medieval Norwegian-Icelandic tradition whose tradition has been rightly/wrongly conflated with him, obv. with acknowledgement of the issue? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Eric or two? 

message: The infobox gives Harald a list of children, but they are nowhere mentioned in the body of the article.  They need to either be added to the article or removed from the infobox, but I am not familiar enough with modern historical consensus to know which is appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: I do not know how to add to wiki, but I believe Eric Bloodaxe is portrayed by Eric Johnson in Vikings. 2603:9001:9200:5E96:B44B:F42E:F7B7:B112 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture