Talk:Harthacnut

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CoinHarthacnut.jpg

Image:CoinHarthacnut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Harthacnut of Denmark? How do we disambiguate them? PatGallacher (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request and discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 04:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Harthacnut (1020–1042) → Harthacnut — This article was very recently at "Harthacnut", it was moved without discussion. It is true that there was also an earlier Harthacnut I of Denmark, but he is a rather shadowy figure. This Harthacnut is clearly more important, a son of the famous Canute who tried to stop the waves, he succeeded to some of his father's territory and was king of England for a time. In my view, where we have only two people of a name, the margin does not need to be very great to decide that one of them is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Danes could have a better idea than anybody else how to disambiguate them. On Danish Wikipedia, this person is plain "Hardeknud", the earlier person is "Hardeknud (Knud 1.)". This one also has articles on several more Wikipedias than the earlier, suggesting he is more important. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per PatGallacher. At least this Harthacnut actually existed. Besides, titles such as Harthacnut of England, Harthacnut (English king) or Harthacnut (king of the English) would be better than Harthacnut (1020–1042). Surtsicna (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd like to keep the Harthacnut disambiguation page. But of course we can change the title to a variant, not the ones Surtsicna is proposing because this guy was king of Denmark far more time than king of England. --Againme (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You do not give any reason why you prefer this approach. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an explanation of the concept of primary topic on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Because I think it is better to keep dab pages whenever a single given name matches exactly two or more Ancient History characters. Even if about the first one we don't know if he existed for sure. --Againme (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That may be your view, but as Favonian and me have pointed out, this view is clearly contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines for primary topics. PatGallacher (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support It make more since that the real one is recognized. We can move him to Harthacnut III of Denmark, but people might get confused about why he is the third Harthacnut, since the second Cnut was not the Hardy but Cnut the Great. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Disambiguation pages for two topics are generally useless and counterproductive. Propaniac (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harthacnut. 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/20091118011459/http://kongehuset.dk/lineage.php?id=58197&dogtag=k_dk_monarkiet_kongeraek&list_id=1 to http://kongehuset.dk/lineage.php?id=58197&dogtag=k_dk_monarkiet_kongeraek&list_id=1

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) 21:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahnentafel

How is Poppa of Bayeux relevant to this article? Why does this chart present the fictional Sigrid the Haughty as the subject's grandmother? Why does it present the fictional Gunhild as the subject's great-grandmother? Why do we even have a 5-generation chart that can list less than half of the 5-generation ancestors? Why are there no sources? Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The lack of sources is a general issue to many, many, MANY ancestry charts since these have been created oover a span of more than a decade, and many users hasn't at the time for the creations of these charts been sufficiently attentive to the possibility, that it could have been a god idea whith some source references. As to the great-grandmother of Harthacnut, the name Gunhild seems the least fictional name to mention, as it is noted by (admitted not always trustworthy) Adam of Bremen, compared with the 3 other possibilities that either comes from various sagas (whith an impossible chronology in some cases), or comes from "wishfull thoughts", that the woman that erected the Sønder Vissing Runestone should somehow be the mother of Sweyn Forkbeard, even though this isn't mentioned anywhere. Why the chart presents Sigrid the Haughty, I can't say for sure. It's not something I have added. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The claim that someone called Sigrid the Haughty is the subject's grandmother is indeed something you added. You added it three times today. The argument that the name Gunhild is the "least fictional name to mention" because it is noted by a "not always trustworthy" chronicler is really an argument against the inclusion of such claim. If the identity of the subject's father's father's mother is not clear enough to be properly presented in a chart, it should not be presented at all. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would probably say, that Rollo is the 'important' person in this matter since showing the ancestry chart back to the great-great-grandparent it gets obvious, that Harthacnut has a Nordic decent on both the side of his fatther as well as of his mother. Poppa of Bayeux was wife or mistress of Rollo, so it would seem odd not to mention her alongside with Rollo. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Harthacnut's descent from Rollo, if deemed relevant, can be easily noted in a single sentence. "Harthacnut was, on his mother's side, a great-great-grandson of Rollo." It would be much more elegant and straightforward than a mangled, hidden template anyway. I don't see why we have to have 17 empty entries just to show Rollo. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Why do we even have a 5-generation chart that can list less than half of the 5-generation ancestors". As I see it, a "full" ancestry chart isn't a goal in itself. The ancestry charts for any given persons in this encyclopedia (or in any encyclopedia) is to show, what we know. What we don't know will obviously not be a part of the chart. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not discussing a full chart. We are nowhere near a full chart and we never will be in this case. We cannot even fill half of this chart, which makes it look absolutely ridiculous. What we do know about this person's ancestry can easily fit into one sentence. We do not need a mangled chart for it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if we should talk about the "artistic impression" of an ancestry chart I personally find it very intriguing with all these different shapes and forms we see from the incomplete ancestry charts. It somehow adds to the diversity of this encyclopedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The only thing it adds is unnecessary Wiki markup, making the article more difficult to read in page source form. (Besides, the artistic value of this chart is such that even those who add it make sure it is hidden away.) This chart does not do any good to the reader. If Harthacnut's descent from Rollo is what the reader is supposed to pick up from it, a simple sentence would do much better than a convoluted, collapsed template. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall having ever seen a single biography of Harthacnut that thought his descended from Rollo (or Gorm for that matter) was particularly noteworthy. Almost all seem satisfied with his immediate ancestral context, his grandfathers and parents, but everybody else we show is rarely mentioned or not at all in the context of Harthacnut. They seem much more interested in his relationships with Harald I, Edward, Estrithson and the Dukes who were his contemporaries than any great-great-grandfather. As such, I would suggest that if a chart is to be used at all, a debatable proposition, it should be a Template:chart one and not an ahnentafel. Agricolae (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)