|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I think one should use the modern norwegian names of the kings with english translations i parentheses.
I disagree. Stick with ON unless there is an anglicised version.
Changes to introduction
I find it strange to start the article by defining the topic of the article, "Heimskringla", as the name of the saga. The article is about the saga, not about its name. A discussion of the background for the name belongs further down in the text. There were also some factual errors about first Danish translation. It is also wrong to say that "Norway", and "Dane" didn't have their present meanings at Snorre's time. At Snorre's time, the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish kingdoms had been established for generations.--Barend 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed on all counts. Haukur 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Heimskringla being a "saga"
I didn't know the Heimskringla was a single saga - after all, it is divided into smaller king's sagas within? Like, the Ynglinga saga, Haralds saga Harfagr etc etc.. shouldn't it be a saga book compiled of 16 different sagas? - User:Cilibinarii (btw sorry if I'm doing anything wrong but I'm new to Wikipedia editing) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC).