Jump to content

Talk:John, King of Denmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


the Netherlands in 1509?

[edit]

"In 1509, with the Netherlands acting as arbiters, Sweden agreed to a declaration which recognised Hans as king of Sweden in principle [...]"

I'm not sure who or what is referred to with 'the Netherlands' here, but no such thing existed in 1509. Csprrr (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

If someone more talented than I could make the infobox look like the succession box it would be appreciated. I can't seem to get it to float correctly. gren 29 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Table

[edit]

I don't like how the article looks because there's a big block of white space between the third and fourth paragraphs. I think the table code should be moved back to where it was in the middle of the sentence before to compensate for this.--Primetime 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not neccesary, see how it looks now. /Grillo 03:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I don't like the white space. There's too much.--Primetime 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly where do you see whitespace? After Da3d's edit, it's gone. If you still see it, clean your cache. /Grillo 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, you use Internet Explorer, stupid IE... Don't put the code back into the sentence though! Better with a little whitespace than how it looked in Opera before, then the table was left of the image and the text was extremely narrow. /Grillo 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Moving the table to the top (or maybe the code conversion) at 03:53, 24 April seems to have fixed it. Sorry about that. Looks great now.--Primetime 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the table at the top fixed the whitespace issue, apparently IE doesn't like having it anywhere else. Of course, the image is also much further down, but that will at least not impact the reading. --Da3d 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Shouldn't the article name be John of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (remove the last comma)? /Grillo 04:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be at John of Denmark like every other article on a Kalmar monarch? john k 04:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that they've all been moved...sigh. Denmark was the main kingdom. We should have Christian I of Denmark, John of Denmark, and Christian II of Denmark. john k 04:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kalmar Union was a union, and the monarchs had to accede to the throne in a legitimate way in all three kingdoms. I do not agree that any one kingdom was the "main" kingdom. Had not Queen Margaret (who by the way was not queen of Denmark, as her article says, but regent) had the position of queen dowager of the kingdoms of Norway and—formally—Sweden, there would never have been a union in the first place. Legitimacy was tremendously important in medieval government, which is shown also by the history of King Charles VIII of Sweden.
Also, it looks peculiar with John of Denmark or the like in articles dealing with Swedish or Norwegian regents.
As for the comma, to my best knowledge American and British standards differ.
Best, Anders Fröjmark 11:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to refer to him as "John of Denmark" in other articles. As to whether a kingdom was the main kingdom, all the Kalmar monarchs primarily resided in Denmark. The later monarchs who were kings of Denmark and Norway are listed at Christian III of Denmark, and so forth. James I of England was King of both England and Scotland, but we only list England in his article title. &c. john k 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Fröjmark had made copy-and-paste moves of Christian I and Christian II. Shilkanni 00:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the copy-and-paste moves, I'm still learning the rules of Wikipedia.
I still think Christian I and Christian II were better article names, for the sake of brevity plus historical correctness. Christian III, mentioned by John Kenney, actually eliminated the status of Norway as a separate kingdom, so in his case, it is less problematic to refer to him as Christian III of Denmark.
As for king John, he has AFAIK never been referred to as "John I" in Danish historiography. I can see the point in the disambiguation argument of Shilkanni, but I would suggest another solution. In recent textbooks (e.g. A History of Scandinavia by T.K. Derry (1979), Medieval Scandinavia by Sawyer & Sawyer (1993), and Cambridge History of Scandinavia, vol. 1 (2003), he is always referred to under his Scandinavian name, Hans. The Britannica 2002, while keeping "John" as their main entry, does the same in some of its historical articles. If would therefore suggest Hans (union king) as the main entry in Wikipedia, thereby facilitating for many users who have met him through these or other historical books. Anders Fröjmark 14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. We do not need more suggestions to his article name. We need to keep him in this one location, which is predictable enough. He was called also Hans. That should be a redirect. But one thing is clear: authors who write more referrals to him in articles, easily guess that John I of Denmark will work. We need to keep the consistency: "first name + regnal number + of + mostimportantcountry" is easiest to predict and does not seem odd in company of his fellow monarchs. Writers will be frustrated with a parentheses-filled specific version - that would be something they need to check in detail in advance before writing their text in totally another page here. Finally, do not make anything too convoluted - omeone has joked about its effects in an example: Talk:Wilhelm, Duke of Glucksburg Shilkanni 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John I of Denmark (or Hans I of Denmark) would be convention. Ferdinand II of Aragon is referred to as such, even though he was also king of Castille, Sicily, Naples, etc. etc. Valentinian (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard our Danish king Hans referred to as John before. Is this common in the English tongue? As a Dane it is rather confusing. Not to mention silly. Methinks the article name should be Hans of Denmark. Then at least we Danes would recognise him. No Dane I believe - except perhaps for historians and history buffs - have heard of a Danish "King John". ;-) Krungadoren 00:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only seen him called Hans before (in various books in English) but Encyclopaedia Britannica does call him John. Seems weird but <shrug>.... --Zeborah 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to "Hans". john k 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen "John" before either. If he had been called "Johan" or "Johannes" I would understand it, but seeing "Hans" changed to "John" is just utterly confusing.--Barend 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest move to John of Denmark

[edit]

To quote wikipedia naming conventions: "Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. The use of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. For example, William I of England, not William of England, as William II of England and William III of England hold the same monarchical name."

There has only been John/Hans of Denmark. I therefore suggest, in keeping with wikipedia naming conventions, to move the article to John of Denmark. The ordinal is not commonly used in historical litterature for this monarch, nor is it in keeping with wikipedia naming conventions to do so.

A different question is whether his name should also be changed to Hans. I would definitely support this as well, but can see that this will probably generate more debate. The removal of the inappropriate ordinal, however, should not be problematic. --Barend--129.177.169.26 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is called Hans in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. This "John-stuff" seems very foreign for us Norse, but maybe he is called that in Anglosaxia! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion I have requested a move to Hans of Denmark and removed this John stuff and replaced with his real name. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the page, please check for double redirects. I've fixed John II of Sweden; I'm assuming is the same person, correct me if I'm wrong! Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to John of Denmark

[edit]
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 moved –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans of Denmark→John of Denmark — "John of Denmark" is the name used by more English language books published after 1990 than "Hans of Denmark". Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King John Denmark 1481 also appears in more books than King Hans Denmark 1481. This article is written for those who speak English and those who speak English are more likely to find a reference to King John of Denmark than a reference to King Hans of Denmark.

Furthermore, the article should be consistent with other articles in the category Category:Swedish monarchs. There are John I of Sweden and John III of Sweden; it is logical that John II of Sweden comes between them, under J, and not under H as Hans of Denmark. His predecessor is called John and his successor is called John; therefore, he should be John as well. There were also Charles XIV John of Sweden. His agnates (members of the House of Oldenburg) are John II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, John, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein and John Frederick of Holstein-Gottorp, Prince-Bishop. His successor in Holstein is called John Adolf, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Consistency is important and so is the the most common name rule. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why not move towards John II of Sweden following the example of the other two monarchs? Are the other two known by "of Sweden" but this guy not? Flamarande (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even John II of Sweden is used sixteen times more often than Hans II of Sweden (in books published after 1990). I really can't think of any reason (other than political correctness) for keeping this article at Hans of Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well put, Surtsicna! As he was King of Denmark primarilly so to speak he should not be headed as John II of Sweden, the redirect would suffice for that. Hans is what he was called mainly in Denmark and Norway and by some in Sweden. No good in English. His birth name was Johannes. However, he since he did have a namesake, his grandson, a child of extreme dynastic importance and notable enough to have his own brief en.WP article (I hope to get to it eventually), I actually think this move should be to John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden and the boy's article should be John, Prince of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Or Scandinavia (all of which they were royal of) in stead of the three separate nations. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OTOH, "king hans" denmark 1481 gets more hits than "king john" denmark 1481, and the results in the former look more relevant, where the results in the latter look brief and/or tangential. When I was researching the time period a couple of years ago, using primarily English sources, I only came across "King Hans", never "King John"; the latter would have baffled me. I think the Danish name should be used unless there's a compelling reason in English not to, and the reasons I've seen (here and in previous discussions) don't compel me. --Zeborah (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, "John II of Sweden" is used sixteen times more often than "Hans II of Sweden", "John I of Denmark" is used three times more often than "Hans I of Denmark", "John king of Denmark" is used more often than "Hans king of Denmark", "John I king of Denmark" gets 11 hits while "Hans I king of Denmark" gets none, etc (in books published after 1990). If the usage is not clearly on either side (though I think it is and that John of Denmark is more common), we should pay more attention to consistency. I must note again that this article is the only article inconsistent with other articles in its categories. We have John I of Sweden, Hans II of Sweden and John III of Sweden, + Charles XIV John of Sweden. Why should one article be inconsistent with a bunch of articles when Hans is not significantly more common (if more common at all) than John? The article is also inconsistent with other related articles, such as John II of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, John of Schleswig-Holstein and John Frederick, John Adolf, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Zeborah. 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)by Inge

  • Support. Consistency - it is our general practice to anglicize royal names per WP:NCNT - should have some weight, especially given such low and close figures as Zeborah's searches (44-31). The difference, such as it is, largely consists of translations from the Danish, not showing much feel for English idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Generally, we use the English form of names for foreign monarchs (and other persons for that matter) unless their indiginous name is consistantly used by authorities for some reason. Just type "King Henry" or "Queen Mary" into the search bar and hit go to see what I mean. Jubilee♫clipman 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Article name, again

[edit]

So after all this discussion about the name of the article, how has it been moved from John of Denmark to John, King of Denmark seemingly with no discussion at all? Confusing and counterintuitive.--Barend (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are using a few moves on other articles as the basis for a rule that all articles like this don't need any discussion. I still personally think every one should still be put through the move request first.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John, King of Denmark. 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:

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) 01:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John, King of Denmark. 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:

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) 22:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image war?

[edit]

Looks like we have an edit war being cooked up here. The question is whether or not an altar piece likeness famous for looking just like King John (left), even if a bit posthumous, is better to use at the top of the article, where it has been for many years, or whether a grave monument sculpture bearing hardly any likeness to anyone (right) should replace the good likeness, with that likeness removed from the article completely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the more useful altar piece portrait (left) unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. Wrote to the reverting user about edit-warring & that we use talk pages, not warfare. Disregarded & deleted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, that user will not communicate about edit-warring and article talk pages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing I agree with you the original effigy looks much better. And I can relate with you about Excommunicato I had similar issues with him with Sun Yat-sen and James III of Scotland. I even left a message on his talk page some time ago and he never responded. Orson12345 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved without discussion

[edit]

He had a well-known grandson who also was John of Denmark. Should have been discussed. Now needs a hatnote at least. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved.(closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– No evidence of primary topic. DrKay (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • page views for articles on the disambiguation page.

DrKay (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. April 2021 is when Prince Philip died, so again the patrilineal ancestry. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John,_King_of_Denmark&oldid=1246284201"