This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I find it hard to see how the parameters of this article are distinct from the parallel articles on Vikings and the Viking Age. Perhaps the difference should be that the Viking Expansion article discusses Scandinavian activities outside their homelands during the Viking Age, while the Viking Age article talks about the situation within Scandinavia itself. If so, the title of the latter needs to be changed to Viking Age Scandinavia, and the entire thing needs to be rewritten. At the same time, it is not clear why there should be a separate article that talks about the Vikings. There's a conceptual circularity here. It's the activities of Vikings that defines the notion of a Viking Age, whether in Scandinavia, or outside it. Yet the popularisation of the terms Viking and Viking Age, means that the noun Viking is now regularly applied to all Norse-speaking people who originated in Scandinavia in the whole period 700/750-1050/1100, and the related adjective is equally applied to all aspects of the culture connected with these people in the same period. The problem is then compounded by the additional presence of an article on Norsemen.
In general a consensus seems to have emerged that it's a good thing to have separate entries for the people and the history of their activities. But I would note that there is no similar distinction made on Wikipedia between 'Romans' and the history of their activities and cultural institutions in the articles on ancient Roman civilization and the Roman Empire. Personally, I think a great deal of muddle would be avoided by having a single article, so that the difficulties inherent in the use of noun and adjective Viking can be made absolutely clear, and an appropriate historical perspective developed in identifying who these people were. Otherwise the alternative articles (all of which are still marred by partisan, incomplete, or non-authoritative contributions) will continue to overlap, repeat one another, as new contributors add information to one without seeing that the others exist. The present articles either need to be massively re-edited, or else merged.
This comment is cross-posted on all three of the most relevant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala-Freyr (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The best solution here might be to merge Viking Age and Viking expansion, since they are practically identical. The Viking article could then refer to these briefly (as it already does) but be developed by concentrating more on cultural matters than the strictly historical. So one could have more on social structure (law, the role of women, and slavery), houses and settlement types, production and exchange, weapons and warfare, religious belief and practice in the pagan period and the early Christian era, language, art (including skaldic poetry). This would mean the merged Viking Age / Viking expansion article could concentrate more on historical processes and events, from the causes of the Viking Age to the reasons for the cessation of these activities, and the two resulting articles would be mutually supportive rather than repetitive. But the pages on the [Viking Age]] and Viking expansion should definitely be merged.CubeDigit (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
why is there not a section on norman italy and particularly norman sicily, the most spectacular of the norman kingdoms ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The notability of Vikings visiting Georgia doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, but it would be a good addition to the Eastern Europe section of the Viking expansion article (especially if the offline source can be verified). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a good ideia. Ruddah (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's merge it. -- BCorr|Брайен 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)