Talk:Sigurd the Crusader

"Sigurd the Crusader"?

"Jorsalafar" does not mean crusader, but someone who has travelled to Jerusalem (as a pilgrim; which fits in well with Sigurd's Norwegian Crusade being described by some as having primarily been a pilgrimage, not a crusade). So a more proper title for the article would be Sigurd Jorsalfar or Sigurd I Magnusson (the title of the article on the Norwegian WP is no:Sigurd Jorsalafare). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Jorsal" was the Old Norse name for Jerusalem, and "fare"/farare" meant traveller, i.e. "Jerusalem-traveller". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See the "Requested move" section above for the various possibilities... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Depiction

Hello, @Surtsicna and @GusGusBrus, I'm opening this discussion after GusgusBrus reached out to the encyclopedia's Discord in English and brought my attention to the image he had added. I agree that we should avoid, as much as possible, modern and fantasized representations of historical figures and instead prefer representations that are as contemporary as possible, possibly even created or approved by the figures themselves, such as coins minted during their reign, for example. However, I also understand the need, when possible, to add images of the figures when they exist. In this particular case, I came across the skull of Sigurd, which was preserved for some time by the University of Oslo before being reburied in 1957, it seems. I think it would be interesting to add this image, given that it is the only one on Commons (aside from 19th-century modern representations that don't seem to have much to do with the figure, apart from projecting later or different elements onto his historical image). Additionally, it would actually represent Sigurd, as it would literally be him. Of course, it is a skull, but I don't see this as a barrier to including it in the infobox, since it is indeed him, and it could even lead to a discussion in the text about the circumstances of the skull's exhumation, etc., while drawing the reader's attention to a lesser-known aspect of Norwegian history and Sigurd's legacy (exhumation of his skull, etc).

Would that be acceptable to both of you ? AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a very interesting proposal, AgisdeSparte. It literally is Sigurd yet I am not sure if it meets MOS:LEADIMAGE criteria: a skull is not what the readers expect to see in the infobox, not to mention the point about shock value. I am definitely in favor of including the skull photo but I believe it is best placed in the Death section. In any case it is better than the fanciful drawing even in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion we should include both. The portrait in the infobox and the skull in his death section. Are both of you happy with that? GusGusBrus (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not think I am happy with the romanticized 19th-century drawing in the infobox. Nothing we would ever consider a high quality reliable source would contain such a depiction. It belongs in a Legacy section. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You could say that for alot of things? Most military battles for example only has a painting from the 1800s-1900s in the infobox. Such is common when it comes to articles relating to history, military conflicts etc. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And that may just be wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Then you should do something about it if you think thats wrong. Before that, this shouldnt be an exception to a common practice. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GusGusBrus @Surtsicna Overall, I felt that the suggestion of having the picture of the skull in the 'Death' section was a good idea. I am sorry, I won't be interacting anymore with the second editor here, so I let you, and other editors, solve the matters between yourselves. So at least for that, we all seem to agree. Have a good one, both of you, on your WP edits, best regards, AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with the skull being in the "Death" section, but i just feel like "No need for fanciful depictions in the lead" isnt a good reasoning why it shouldnt be in the infobox. It is common to do with historical kings, battles etc on Wikipedia. Since there isnt any contemporary depictions (as far as im concerned) and the skull might not be fit for the infobox, there shouldnt be any problem with it. GusGusBrus (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that there is a clear norm in historical biographies is to avoid modern "fantasy" depictions. About military history articles I don't know. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That is if there arent any contemporary depictions such as a coin or similar. GusGusBrus (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No, there being no contemporary images does not mean that a non-contemporary image should be in the infobox. A lead image is not required. See MOS:LEADIMAGE. It is also not about contemporary images but about images used in reliable sources. See below. Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is indeed a clear norm, confirmed in discussions such as this RfC on images in papal infoboxes, and it seems quite obvious to me at least. If that is not enough, there is also the Manual of Style, which says: "Lead images should ... be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." (MOS:LEADIMAGE) An obscure 19th-century drawing is not something one can find in high-quality reference works, is therefore not what our readers expect to see, and is therefore not something we should have as the lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As a non-lead image we could use Magnussonnenes_saga_3_-_G._Munthe. Here the author is notable, and his illustrations of Heimstringla seems to be held in high regard. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)