Talk:Scandinavian York

message: Is it just me or does the article's History section jump around a bit without purpose?  I think that it might need to be re-written..  Or at least re-arranged for better clarity.--Vercalos 08:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order/Paragraph 

message: While Jórvík may be the correct Icelandic spelling of Jorvik, I'm not convinced that's how it should be on this English Wikipedia. The area around modern-day York was populated in the main by Danes, speaking old East Norse dialect, wheras Iceland was populated by peoples from Norway speaking old West Norse dialect. Given that the Jorvik Viking Centre uses a form without modifiers, I'd suggest that the article should follow suit and just be plain Jorvik.
I'm sorry if this is rehashing an old argument - if anyone can point me to resources that back the use of Jórvík, I'd be grateful to learn. WLD 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jórvík vs. Jorvik 

message: It's the same. --Arigato1 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't work very well. The York article is large enough that several other articles have been spun off such as Eboracum and History of York. I think that there is enough information here to require a seperate article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is no need to merge this article.The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with York? 

message: I'd like to propose a split. The Kingdom of Jórvík needs its own article not just a redirect, because the line of kings featured in the article were not just kings of its capital city alone (also named Jórvík, now York).. but a wider Kingdom of Jórvík which encompassed most of Yorkshire.See this source, it was indepedent from Danelaw forming its own certified Kingdom for around a century. Opinions or objections? - Yorkshirian 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option would be to make the difference clearer in the article so that there are distinct sections for the City and the Kingdom.  How much separate information is there on the Kingdom?  Would it be better to create sections about the Kingdom in this article then split it if there is too much separate information?  On the other hand the other kingdoms/provinces that were centred around York  have separate articles.  --Kaly99 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, we should be thinking of creating "encyclopedic treatment" rather than directory entries. The readers who enters "Jórvík" should find all the relevant information. If the article swells to unmanageable proportions, then a big subsection "Kingdom of Jórvík" could be made a separate article. In this case, one would leave a concise summary of appropriate length here, with a "Main article, see..." hatnote at its head, using . --Wetman 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no doubt that something needs doing (Some months ago I removed most of the material about the Jorvik Viking Centre which really did need a separate article, but left the rest intact). I think the way to go is along the lines proposed by Kaly99 and Wetman:  sort out the article first so that the distinction between the city and the kingdom is made clear, then decide whether a split is necessary and/or desirable.  Once separate sections are sorted out, links to the city (or the kingdom, whichever comes second) could be to Jórvík#City of Jórvík (or #Kingdom of Jórvík as the case may be). --GuillaumeTell 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A related matter is the Kings of Jórvík section near the bottom.  I'd be inclined to remove the whole section and the embryo table to the so-called "main article" Kings of Jorvik (note lack of accents), which looks rather odd at present and needs some sorting out (there are, however, a lot of pages that link to it).  Then a see-also reference is all that's needed in the present article, since the important kings are included already. --GuillaumeTell 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into two articles, Kingdom and City

message: There should be some mention of Wulfstan's promotion of Eric Bloodaxe as the last pagan king in England and his eventual demise at the hands of King Eadred. Workersdreadnought 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of Archbishop Wulfstan

message: I'm presuming this link I've found is about the same king as the one who ruled Jórvík, it could be useful in creating an article about him. Though I'm not sure if we are allowed to use something like a message on RootsWeb.com as a reference? - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: king [[Sigferth]], potentially useful

message: Jorvik and the Norse Kingdom of Dublin, on occasion, had the same king and share strong links with each other.  --Kaly99 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this included in WikiProject Ireland?

message: The article states "York had been founded as the Roman legionary fortress of Eboracum". Am I wrong in thinking that Eboracum predates the Roman settlement?
JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any evidence for that other than the Brythonic name. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Was York founded by Romans?

message: I don't think the name of the article is right. "Jórvík" just means York.  The kingdom was named from the city.
"Jórvík" is only the name in the Norse language, not modern English (nor Old English, which calls the city "Eoforwic"). The name in English is the "Kingdom of York".  If we have "Jórvik" we might as well move the "Kingdom of Essex" article to "East Seaxna rice".Howard Alexander (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a good point. The whole Jórvík thing is an attempt to make York look like a Viking longphort like Thetford, Derby, Waterford and Dublin. In fact, it was a large English city the seat of a metropolitan. Its rulers for the part probably spoke Irish and English rather than Norse and, furthermore, the kingdom is almost never called "York" (in any linguistic form), but Norþhumberland (Latine "Northumbria"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name: Kingdom of York v Jórvík 

message: I notice this page was recently moved from Jorvik to Scandinavian York. I'm not necessarily opposed to this (I'm no expert) but it does seem clunky so I'd like to hear the rationale. I've never heard anyone raise objections to the use of 'Jorvik', was this not the name of Scandinavian York? --—Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jorvik is just the Norse name for York. The content of the article is clearly about York in its "Scandinavian" era. The new title is more intuitive, per Hudson's Scandinavian York and Dublin. I understand why Jorvik might be considered a potential title here, but scholars [i.e. usage in reliable sources] call Scandinavian York "York", they don't change it to "Jorvik". In any case, for what it's worth, in this Scandinavian period most of the inhabitants were English and the rulers probably spoke Gaelic as often if not more than Norse.  Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the change is that, for most users of Wikipedia, "York" means the historic city and/or the current enlarged city.  "Scandinavian York" therefore sounds like an article about the city of York during the Scandinavian occupation, whereas it is, or ought to be, about the wider area that was under Scandinavian rule.  The kingdom of York, or indeed The kingdom of Jórvík, seems to me to be a better and clearer title. --GuillaumeTell 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jorvik just means York too, not the wider area under Scandinavian rule. For that we have Northumbria or, if you prefer, Danelaw. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Northumbria and Danelaw synonymous? I thought Danelaw extended further south than Northumbria? Including places such as Leicester and Nottingham. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they're not synonymous, but Scandinavian Northumbria is part of the modern term Danelaw. The point is that the topic is covered, or covered as best as it could be without a "Scandinavian England" article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree in thinking this move is wrong, and that Jorvik is the more common name for this - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jorvik is just a Scandinavised name for York. It's not period specific. And besides the heritage centre it is NOT used in English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Scandinavian York" 

message: There's an old proposal (October 2008) to merge the articles on Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia. There's not been much input so if anyone interested of with knowledge of the period could chip in at Talk:Dumnonia#Merger proposal - Kingdom of Dumnonia that'd be great. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for input

message: I was wondering why the infobox which was on the page had been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cor1314 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is for distinct kingdoms, which Scandinavian York is not. The appropriate template is located at Northumbria. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I noticed that the end date of Northumbria has recently been extended to 954. I had made an infobox for Jorvik when it was only 876 as there was a gap between Northumbria and the Kingdom of England. --Cor1314 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Deleted?

message: Because York is 60 miles inland on a straight river we cannot call it a ‘’’bay’’’ in our modern topographic sense. 
But ‘’Vic’’ = bay is not unique to Old Norse, it is also in Middle Low German: wik The Century dictionary and cyclopedia. Vol 10, William Dwight Whitney, Benjamin Eli Smith. New York. Century Co. 1909.  and in MHG wich = bayDictionary. 
Compare those with OHG wih = village. Dictionary This confusion of similar-sounding words for camp and bay is widely noted in old Germanic languages “meaning: house, also bay or trading place. Examples: Braunschweig, Greenwich, Osterwieck" GenWiki. 
But this introduction of a third option, trading place, suggests a resolution. The only land-fall significant for long-ship sailors is dry land where they can beach their craft and load with goods, and/or camp. The Humber's banks were bogs and mires up to the position of York.
A settlement with a place for loading and unloading of ships-of-trade is what we now call a port. I propose O.N. vik meant port.
Kildwyke (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ’’Vic’’ means port 

message: Wick, noun, Old English O.E.  wic "dwelling place, abode, camp" is from P.I.E *weik- "clan".  
: c.f. O.Fris. wik, O.S. wic "village;" O.H.G. wih "village;" Goth. weihs "village;" Skt. vit "dwelling, house, settlement;" O.Pers. vitham "house, royal house," O.Iranian Avestan vis "clan, house, village;” L. vicus " group of houses;" Gk. oikos "house." Dictionary
Outdated dictionaries state that "Old English wic is from Latin vicus 'village, hamlet'", but Wic is in fact from  Proto-Indo-European. Germanic and Latin are very divergent branches from one root. Hence you can compare them, that is write '"OE wic cf. L vicus", but you cannot write '"OE wic fr. L vicus".
Kildwyke (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root of Old English -wic is Proto-Indo-European 

message: I think this splendid graphic would be far better placed on the great heathen army page Flarp (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Heathen Army Picture

message: Where it says that in the intro, it mentions that York (or Jorvik?) is a city.  It only previously said that it was a roman fort called Eboracum.
Which one is it at that point in history?  That part is confusing.  I think it should be called a fort until the narrative arrives at a point in history when it can be confirmed that it had become a city - as in, significant trading population, and more than just a defendable location.
Impfireball (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to Retake Danish Occupied York by Deira and Bernicia