Talk:Viking Age: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
D72 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 63: Line 63:
== New findings to re-define years range of the Viking Age ==
== New findings to re-define years range of the Viking Age ==


[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416519301278 Sciencedirect] and other sources have published research on Salme ship burials of Vikings that date back 50 more years to year 750. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:D72|D72]] ([[User talk:D72#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/D72|contribs]]) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416519301278 Sciencedirect] and other sources have published research on [[Salme ships|Salme ship burials]] of Vikings that move initial date back 50-100 more years to year 700-750. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->[[User:D72|D72]] ([[User talk:D72|talk]]) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:20, 17 December 2021

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjacob10 (article contribs).

Viking heritage of the Rurik dynasty

The Rurik dynasty's Viking heritage, alluded to here, is a topic of substantial controversy amongst Russian historians. I am not qualified to speak out on the subject but a professional historian of Russia should craft a more nuanced and informed statement on the subject.

Viking Age in Estonia

Viking Age in Estonia is an official historical period. How should it be included in this article? A separate subheadline? Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you have good useable sources why not incorporate it in the article? Sorry for being late, but I guess this is still a relevant issue? RhinoMind (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blomsterhagens, See Wikipedia:Summary style. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Legacy section

Hi, and I probably did lots of newbie mistakes, like the font sizes of the subsections (Settlements and English Language). The text in the "Scandinavia" section is also very short ... I was considering including "Genetics" in the Legacy section, but I'm not sure if that is correct.

PS: I also removed Dorestad from the list of Baltic trading stations.
PPS: I also streamlined the wording in the leidang passage (under "Technology").
T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the section "Legacy" is tagged as empty; from my POV that is mainly a typographical issue, as the following sections (History of Scandinavia, Colonies, English loanwords from Norse) were originally conceived as sub-headings - i.e. content - of the "Legacy" section, whereas now they appear as independent sections. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, alternatively, in order to avoid duplication, the content of the Legacy section could consist of a "See also" type link list, including e.g Viking Art and similar articles. Idk if there is a Viking Portal, or something similar, where one can find all Viking (legacy) related articles. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Rule

"Harold Harefoot became king of England after Cnut's death, and Viking rule of England ceased." Since Harefoot was Cnut's son, how is it that Viking rule of England ceased? Manannan67 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical backgorund and context

What's the difference between the historical background and historical context sections? If they are redundant I suggest to merge them into a single section. Forich (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd say that the "Context" section covers what would otherwise be called "image" or "reception", i.e. the status of Vikings in historiography. The "Background" section is a very meagre and school essay-like sketch of some geographical and cultural traits of Scandinavia. It should be expanded, worked into the "reasons for" section or simply eliminated. The third Historic section, "Overview", looks like a "Timeline". T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New findings to re-define years range of the Viking Age

Sciencedirect and other sources have published research on Salme ship burials of Vikings that move initial date back 50-100 more years to year 700-750. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D72 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]