Talk:Five Boroughs of the Danelaw

Proposed Move

As according to the intro they are more usually called the Five Boroughs, is there any reason why the page shouldn't be moved? Bevo74 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but the name "Five Boroughs" is currently claimed as a re-direct for Borough (New York City), which happens to go by the same name. Because it is only a re-direct, the move may be justified (as long as there is a disambiguation note), but others might object that the use of "Five Boroughs" is better attested for NY, perhaps overwhelmingly so. I've got the impression that "Five Burghs" is a bit of an unsatisfactory compromise to that. The use of burgh may be slightly archaic, except when referring to the Scottish type of town. How about "Five Boroughs of (the) Danelaw"? Cavila (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgoten all about this. To me this move makes perefect sense. Bevo74 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a move to "Five Boroughs (Danelaw)". I've never heard the term as "Five Burghs", but obviously I was brought up thinking of "Five Boroughs" as a term referring to the Danelaw not a part of a state in the US. I was actually searching for this Five Boroughs so the fact that the New York page is unqualified surprised me rather. The existing state of affairs feels a bit unsatisfactory. Francis Davey (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this point not merit a disambiguation? "Five Boroughs" is understandably important to both English history and the City of New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougielx (talk • contribs) 12:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Five Boroughs of the Danelaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050426092017/http://www.btinternet.com:80/~simonmarchini/History/Danish_History.htm to http://www.btinternet.com/~simonmarchini/History/Danish_History.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Five Boroughs of the Danelaw. 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/20071217023345/http://www.roman-britain.org/rb_towns.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/rb_towns.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220204741/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/lindum.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/lindum.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207150627/http://nottinghamchurches.org/history/city.htm to http://nottinghamchurches.org/history/city.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Strange comments about hides in the text

There are strange connections between fort size and hides. For example, saying "This 6-acre (24,000 m²) rectangular fort would have given the burh the equivalent of c. 500 hides." or "The burh might have made use of the walls of the Roman Leicester (Ratae Corieltauvorum), of approx 7,800 ft (2,400 m) (c. 1900 hides)." makes no sense, considering that a hide is the amount of land needed to support a family, about 120 old acres. There may be an omitted connection between the size of a fort and how much of the surrounding area that fort could control, but as it now stands, it just seems very odd. I did not want to just edit it out, as there may be an explanation that makes sense, but if you don't have one, I suggest that all these hide comments are removed. AlfWe (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)