Jump to content

Talk:Danevirke

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

Da(n)nevirke

[edit]

The modern Danish spelling notwithstanding, I have amended the (formerly inconsistent) usage of Dannevirke/Danevirke in the article to Danevirke throughout as the latter would appear to be the more frequently used spelling in English-language sources. -- Picapica 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Kovirke/Kograben

[edit]

Though Danish "ko" means "cow", I suspect that cow-works could be a bowdlerizing. My reasons:

  • The German name keeps "Ko-" unchanged. "Cow" is "Kuh" in German and "Kau" (pronounced like "cow") in Low German.
  • In Bremen, where I'm living, there is a draining and former shipping canal named "Kuhgraben", and it is established knowledge, that this name is not derived from "Kuh"/"Kau" but from "Gau", an ancient word for "district", as the canal devided Blockland region from Hollerland region.

I hope that a Danish wikipedian will read this and verify or falsify it.--Ulamm (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.F. Allen rendered it as "Kurvirke" or "Kurgraven" and describes the name as derived from "kure", an old verb meaning "to guard". (C.F. Allen, Om Sprog og Folke-Eiendommelighed i Hertugdømmet Slesvig eller Sønderjylland, Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel, 1850, p. 11) Ordbog over det Danske Sprog indeed contains such a verb, and mentions that it can also mean "to scout".[1] "Gau" cannot be the origin as it is a German word without a Danish parallel.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.43.14 (talk • contribs) Its a canal dug by ings people and they used it for trade, no reason to go around! then they moved, well not all of us, danes called it whut fit theyre needs to try claim history in hereditary line,...whut is the real name? whut did offa of mercia name his canal, yes its a canal, experts of history be damned,my name is title in rune. k.r.o.n.t.z.,. bloodchieftain heredity Ing Toustos grandson.proven fact cromagnon man were looked at by man as they were more than.compared with gods. proven fact we are them! p.s. no Nordic bronzeage they had crucible steel 12000 years ago and spoke anglish and all customs and all tribes are of mannus and ings vast ones. K.R.O.N on all coins, blood chieftain heredity of Ing, SHOWED WHO WAS BACKING IT! WORTHLESS OTHERWISE! WILLIAM II K.R.O.N.T.Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.87.190 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I propose the name used be Danavirki. Firstly it's the original spelling. Secondly its spelling is closer to the modern English pronunciation than the Danish spelling. Thirdly the spelling usage is about 50/50 Danevirke/Danavirki in modern English, with academic writing generally favouring Danavirki. For these reasons i think the ON should be used. Any thoughts?DDH89 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[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 not moved. Aervanath (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danevirke → Dannevirke — The primary spelling of this seems to be Dannevirke in English as well as Danish, the only reason it is Danevirke at the moment seems to be that the town of Dannevirke in New Zealand was using the name. I have renamed that one so that the primary topic, which is the fortification, can use the name. Saddhiyama (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the town was named for the fortification. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. It is clear that the town is by far the primary topic for this name - a quick glance at google, for instance, shows that 98 of the first 100 articles using the term "Dannevirke" are referring to the New Zealand town. There are 325k ghits for Dannevirke. Remove the words "New Zealand" from the search, and you're left with only 90k - and of them the first hits are for the settlement of Dannevirke, Nebraska! Sure, the town was named after the fortifications, but this is not in itself any indication of the priority for the article - unless you're also saying, for instance, that Boston, Lincolnshire, is as well known as Boston, Massachusetts, or that Philadelphia makes people think of ancient Turkey more often than Pennsylvania.
The number of article links at Dannevirke is also telling, especially now that some of the "correcting" done by Saddhiyama has been repaired. I've just spent the last hour or so repairing the damage caused by someone who moved the town article without (a) discussing that move on the town article's talk page and (b) checking the naming conventions for town articles, which would have made it clear that, if disambiguated, the article should have been at Dannevirke, New Zealand (a long-standing redirect), and NOT at Dannevirke (New Zealand). It's also worth noting the number of websites which use Danevirke as the primary spelling for the fortifications: even the museum of the site uses Dannewerk first and Danevirke second, without using Dannevirke at all. See also User:Picapica and User:DDH89's comments further up this talk page.
If you want to change it to Dannevirke (fortifications), it might make sense, but even then, it appears that (a) the main spelling in English is Danevirke and (b) the New Zealand town is the primary topic with this title. If it is decided that there needs to be disambiguation of the New Zealand town article (currently adequately done by hatnote), please follow the naming conventions and put it at Dannevirke, New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When this article was created on 13 July 2004, the creator said in the edit summary "new article under most typical spelling, 'danevirke'". Nothing has changed since. I support the other points made by Grutness. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's hard to imagine the fortification being more notable than the occupied place Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Grutness has made a convincing case that Dannevirke is primarily used in English to refer to the NZ town. The comments further up the talk page by Picapica and DDH89 also suggest the move would be inappropriate. -- Avenue (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grutness and others above.-gadfium 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Google Books suggests that they are about equally well known (I am surprised; the Dannevirke was a major part of three historical crises). But in that case, moving to Dannevirke, New Zealand and Dannevirke (fortification) is the right thing to do, bringing Dannevirke (disambiguation) to the unadorned name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the alternative solution proposed by Septentrionalis. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this too. Check those Google Books books. Those which refer to the Danish fortification as "Dannevirke" are almost without exception from over 90 years ago. If you limit your search to books in English published in the last 30 years, then of the first 100 books listed, 73 are about the New Zealand one and only 19 are about the Danish one (the remaining eight are about a church in Canada, the place in Nebraska, and a defunct Danish newspaper). Of the 19 about the Danish fortifications, six only list it as an alternative spelling of Danevirke. A similar Google Books search for the same time period indicates more books about the fortifications using the Danevirke spelling than the Dannevirke spelling. Sure, it may at one time have been the primary spelling in English - and Google Books will slant towards this because of the large number of older books listed - but the other results listed above make it clear that the Danish fortifications are far more widely known by other spellings (namely Danevirke, Dannewerk, and Danavirki) in English. Changing the spelling in this way would thus be akin to insisting that Kenya was moved to Kenia. There is a hatnote on the page about the New Zealand town; that is all that is really needed. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the primary spelling in English when the town was named- that's why the town's spelled that way; it is still the one I am most familiar with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the principal spelling when the town was named, but that was over a century ago. No offence, but just because one editor is more familiar with it at one spelling doesn't mean it's the spelling it should be at - especially when the most common current spelling is different. I'm more familiar with Kolkata being spelt as "Calcutta", but I wouldn't argue that the article should be moved to that title, because it isn't the most common current spelling. And if the name Calcutta was now more clearly associated with another topic, it would be the topic with that name. Anyone who goes to the article on Dannevirke expeecting to find the article on Danevirke is directed there by a hatnote, which is standard practice when you have articles with similar spellings - but most editors who know anything about the fortifications are more likely to go straight to Danevirke anyway. I don't see any reason why the titles should change -especially since the primary topic at the Dannevirke spelling is, as I have pointed out, clearly the New Zealand town. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me in England in Europe, "Dan(n)evirke" and similar spellings first mean the fortification. I had never heard of the place in New Zealand until I read this set of Wikipedia articles. Redirect all English/Danish/German/etc variant spellings without disambig appendages to one of them, which let be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With due respect, that's a very Eurocentric viewpoint - I might as well say that to me in New Zealand, Brighton first means the town south of Dunedin, so the one in England should be the one disambiguated. Wikipedia is worldwide, which is why we rely on external sources rather than individual perspectives to see which is likely to be a primary topic. hence the google search, which indicated that "Dannevirke" overwhelmingly points to the New Zealand town. And given that we have two different spellings as the most common spellings of two different things (and that the NZ town article has a hatnote pointing to this article), I don't see that there's much problem. The Danevirke is the Danevirke, and Dannevirke is Dannevirke. There is already a disambiguation page, at Dannevirke (disambiguation). That clearly indicates that each article is at its normal spelling. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 13 June 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.

How many Danevirkes?

[edit]
Well, as I mentioned in the renaming request above, a thousand or so of the 300,000 Google hits for Dannevirke were connected to Nebraska, though I didn't find much evidence of it actually existing as a village/township/settlement (either with one or two Ns). There is also a church in Canada which seems to have that name, but again, no evidence of a village/town/settlement. Grutness...wha? 02:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dannevirke, Nebraska is little more than a Lutheran Church and a Community Hall, although in the past (pre-1920s) it may have had a population of as high as 100. Smitty008 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archeologists Find Gateway to the Viking Empire

[edit]

In someone's Copious Spare time:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,714235,00.html [and elsewhere....]

dave_p@comcast.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.100.220 (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is included now. Sorry for not posting reply before now, but I discovered the source independently of your suggestion. The article would benefit from more sources in English. RhinoMind (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danevirke. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danevirke. 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) 01:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danevirke&oldid=1206873248"