Talk:Eric of Pomerania

message: The caricature is contemporary (I believe the full picture also features a Byzantine Emperor and, if I remember correctly, the Holy Roman Emperor). Do we have any information about the Polish portait and its age? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: The article says that he was Duke of Stolp/Słupsk from 1449-59. Dukes of Pomerania lists a "Casimir I" as the duke during that time period. Olessi (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Pomerania 

message: *Move Eric VI of Denmark to 'Eric Menved over redirect, per WP:COMMONNAME.
::Including as arguments for moving my post from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark#Erics of Denmark: Namng conventions
:::A short search of google books shows that at least some of them are pobably much more widely known by their cognomens and that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns they should be located by their cognomen. 
The results of my search are such:
:Eric I of Denmark 44 hits - Eric the Good 332 hits - Eric Ejegod 86 hits (in English language books)
:Eric II of Denmark 48 hits - Eric the Memorable 30 hits- Eric Emune 61 hits (in English language books)
:Eric III of Denmark 27 hits - Eric the Lamb 89 hits
:Eric IV of Denmark 33 hits - Eric Plovpenning 79 hits ("Eric Plough-tax" 0 hits - this name should be removed from the Danish kings infobox)
:Eric V of Denmark 28 hits - Eric Klipping 85 hits
:Eric VI of Denmark 51 hits - Eric Menved 389 hits
:Eric VII of Denmark 111 hits - Eric of Pomerania 651 hits
I would suggest that at least Eric I, Eric VI and Eric VII be moved to Eric the Good, Eric Menved and Eric of Pomerania respectively. For some of the others it might be a matter of discussion and consensus whether they should be moved or whether they should stay.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be no such confusion since as the numbers show these kings are overwhelmingly known by one name in the anglosphere. Whether it makes sense is not really relevant - the usage is what counts according to policy. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  We use the name commonly used in English.  In this case, that is clearly "Eric of Pomerania" by an order of magnitude. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Striking my comment above - this discussion is about the others.  "Eric the Good" is how he is known in English sources.  "Eric the Memorable" is how the next Eric is known in English sources.  I don't think Christian II is a very valid example in this discussion because actually he is commonly known in English as Christian II.  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And for what its worth ive never heard Christian the II mentioned as "the good" but always as Christian den Anden.08:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian II of Norway is identical to the Danish king of the same name, and he is never called anyting else in Norway. But Norwegian history books generally mention his Swedish epithet "Christian Tyrann" because of his unpopularity in Sweden. Roede (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, Danish history books mention that too. Never heard of "the good" though. The guy basically just massacred swedes and then spent a decade walking around a table. Don't know how that would prompt the "good" cognomen.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: That's a good point. final decisions for the other kings should probably discussed and research separately for each.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Eric I/Eric the Good, Eric III/Eric Lamb, and Eric VII/Eric of Pomerania are the ones who have fairly solid COMMONNAME arguments, not so sure about the others.  Then "Eric the Good" may have ambiguity issues.  Does anybody have book search results for "Eric the Good" referring to someone else?  I really think that the biggest problem here would be moving Eric Lamb and Eric of Pomerania to ordinal names.  I'll take a look at some others when I get a bit more time.  Thank you all for looking into this. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric VI of Denmark

message: I changed the info box portrait to one with better color and more of him visible. Another editor changed it back to the severely cropped version with dull color, giving the opinion that the new one is not better and the question "who wants to see the frame?" I am reverting that, not to make war but to discuss. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see much of a difference beside it's brighter and includes more unneeded space and framing. Can you crop this image and remove the frame? In the infobox picture you don't really want to include the frame of the portait. Although I think this argument really depends on one's opinion. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Shall we ask for a Third opinion? SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better portrait? 

message: Cecilia (royal mistress) should be merged into Eric of Pomerania. Cecilia is only notable in the context of being Eric's mistress, so a separate article is unnecessary. Also, there is very little information about her; this information can be merged into Eric's page without causing article size problems. Jenphalian (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no; many people are notable because of their connection to powerholders, but this form of notability does not mean that they are not notable enough for their own article. The information is already to much to add to the article of Eric. There may also be more to add eventually. --Aciram (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The article is a bit scrappy but I think does just about pass notability.  Not everybody who had a brief affair with a king is inherently notable, but we already have several articles on royal mistresses. PatGallacher (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A connection to a powerful person isn't enough for notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Other articles about royal mistresses don't justify this one (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Cecilia's notability has to be judged on its own merit. This article seems to include every single verifiable fact about her, all of which (including the anecdote about the nobleman attacking her) relate directly to Eric, so it is perfectly reasonable to place these facts in his article. Further, his article is 20kB, which is not too large to merge 1.7kB of information into. Jenphalian (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. To me, the article as it looks now seems to have been created for the sake of creating an article about Cecilia, not because it stands up well on its own. We don't even know the woman's full name and/or heritage. I wish we did know more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe one should be aware of the fact that this article may be expanded. This means that the argument that it is small is not enough: the work with articles on wikipedia is in continuing progress. Also, this is not just an article about a royal mistress, but also, as we can see, about a consort of a monarch: she was married to him.--Aciram (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further more, this should really be a separate discussion about the deletion of the article (which would in reality be the case if it is merged) and not something to discuss on the back-page of another article. --Aciram (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Aciram, I followed WP:MERGE instead of requesting deletion so there would be a redirect (not a red link), and to preserve material that is currently written. That's why the discussion is here. Whether mistress or consort, WP:NOTINHERITED still applies. Jenphalian (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the likelihood of the Cecilia article being expanded. We know nothing about this woman, not even through Polish historians who would know, if anyone. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Note that she has her own article in the Danish Dictionary: . Whether the article can be expanded or not, furthermore, is something yet to be established. --Aciram (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 new books about Queen Philippa mention Cecilia. This article needs to be brought into balance between latter-day propaganda and contemporary facts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eric gryf. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric gryf listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This is from the biography by Herman Lindqvist which was released this August. I actually contacted Lindqivst after I read this claim, since he doesn't cite any sources for it in his work. He told me that this was something several Polish popular historians claimed, but that neither he nor any other historian he knew had a primary source for it. There is obviously a case to be made for Eric being considered the equal to an emperor in his own time, since he was depicted as an equal alongside Sigismund (at that time King of the Romans) and John VIII of the Byzantine Empire, but in my opinion this can at most be considered a speculative claim. In my opinion it would be better to create a new section exploring this possibility and remove it from the introduction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.92.145 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in his own time he was considered an emperor" 

message: Shouldn't dates in the right column show Norway 1389-1442, Sweden 1396-1434, 1436-1439 and Denmark in 1396-1439 followed by dukedom 1146-1459 so that they are chronologically listed, separated by countries/titles and correct? I understand Margaret I was the boss until 1412 but the actual dates do not seem to be listed correctly.
ICE77 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent date listing