Talk:Ulfcytel

Etymology of Ulfcytel's name

Hi, fascinating article, thank you for your hard work. I was just wondering why, since you mention at least twice that Ulfcytel's name was Scandinavian, you never explain this etymology? It seems relevant to the article's claims. Thank you, have a nice day. 2A02:8428:6E68:3D01:2959:FFD9:2ECB:37BC (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. So far as I remember the etymology is not explained in the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Danes a "mauled" people?

The lead paragraph says that the "Danes were badly mauled" yet mauled is an odd way to describe a collective noun such as the Danes. The rhetoric leads the reader to attempt to visualize an image of which it is difficult to conceive. —catsmoke ^talk 20:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary lists this as one of the meanings of "maul". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

To which meaning do you refer (that is, to which of the definitions, as in verb 1 and so forth)? I myself looked at all the definitions and none of them seemed to assuage the problem. A general abstraction is easy to apply to a collective noun such as is Danes—defeated, driven back, and so forth. But "mauled" implies a specific injury, a mauling consists of some specific injuries. "How was he mauled?" "The sword chopped off his ear and cut a chunk out of his torso." Specifically, how were the Danes mauled? I shall attend to the OED and seek a usage example of maul being applied to a collective noun, but, as I've said, I have already looked there once to justify this usage. —catsmoke ^talk 03:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The quote in the article is "The military historian Richard Abels comments: "The Danes gained a pyrrhic victory; badly mauled, they withdrew to their ships."" For OED see definition 1.2. For example "Thrashing the..bishop and terribly mauling his body of followers". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for pointing this out. Now I see that it was a direct quote. It is Abels to whom I ought to direct my critique. I apologize, for my lack of comprehension. Please note that Abels does apply the verb to a set of individual Danes, in "mauled, they withdrew". To express this idea with a plural noun having received the maulings (with each Dane uniquely mauled) is a usage far superior to the application to a collective noun of the state of having been mauled. The nature of a mauling is such that it is not a concept which the mind easily generalizes. That is my opinion, at least. And I might dare to suggest that whoever wrote "mauling his body of followers" [italics mine] had mickle wit, subtle and sharp. I appreciate your patient discussion of this subject. —catsmoke ^talk 00:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Recent edit

Yngvadottir thanks for your recent edit, but I have reverted it. 1. It has the comment "This edit intended to improve the encyclopaedia is not an endorsement of the WMF." I do not know what "WMF" means. If it means Wikimedia Foundation I am not sure what you are saying. 2. Another minor point is that a space is inserted before the Old Norse ref, but there should never be spaces between text and refs. 3. The Old Norse is cited to Campbell, but he does not say it is Old Norse. A correct ref is needed. 4. A fourth ref is inserted for a comment on skalds with no page numbers in the ref or the source. This additional ref is not needed, but if it is added it should be to the same standard as the rest of the article, with page numbers for the chapter in the source and the specific page number in the ref.

If the edits are re-inserted with correct refs I will not revert. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out your reasoning and for offering not to re-revert. I'm aware this is an FA. In order of importance as I see it:

1. Without Jesch, we have no reference specifically about Sigvatr's verse; the literary context matters, and we should reflect current scholarship on skaldic material, where the publication project of which that book is part has moved the needle.
2. Old Norse is important context for the reader when considering the forms of his name. When we say later in the intro and again in the body, "The etymology of his name is Scandinavian", that means the Old Norse language, and the reader needs to have the link in the note as necessary background. In the body, I was tempted to replace the link on etymology (surely common knowledge; numerous articles use the word as a section header) with a piped link to Old Norse on "Scandinavian", especially since that's all we say on the linguistic context of his name despite the section header being "Name and status"; when we go on to talk about the implications for his not being made an ealdorman and the suggestion he was a Danish Viking, we are assuming the reader understands that this is a non-Anglo-Saxon/Old English name. And as we later say in a blockquote, his reputation was in large part Scandinavian; will the reader know that "[c]ontemporary Scandinavian sources" and (in the quote) "Scandinavian skaldic verse" are in a different language from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as well as from the language of Anglo-Norman historians? (I see we do have the explanatory link to Anglo-Norman literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if some readers conflate the two while others just aren't sure what "Scandinavian" implies in this period, despite the links on "Viking" and "Viking invasions". Knowledge of the skalds and the role of their verses in the history sagas is hardly widespread among English speakers.) ... I take the point that Campbell may not use those words, but surely he mentions "Scandinavian" or "skaldic"? If Old Norse must specifically be cited, then IMO that should become a multiple reference with the addition of whatever ref we are using below for his name having Scandinavian etymology that happens to use the words. But I don't see that it needs a specific citation in the note.
3. The page number is there in the URL link to the online version of the Skaldic Project, so it was easy to add it. Whoever added Jesch may have thought that since the reference was to the page on a single verse, via a discrete URL, the page number was superfluous; easily remedied.
4. Sorry about the adventitious space, and thanks for mentioning it; I obviously missed it in preview.
5. I make no apology for disavowing the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of my edit summaries. If I am to continue contributing to this project, I cannot allow it to be interpreted as endorsing that organisation. Them's the breaks. Readers of the pages I edit don't see my edit summaries, and they fall below the standard of affrighting the horses (far below the level of this explanation), so I am surprised to see that used as a rationale for reverting, but perhaps you feared something more nefarious was intended.

I hope that fixed it, but I've laid out my rationale and thoughts over Old Norse in some detail in case you still want to revert that, or to make some other change. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)