Talk:Valdemar IV of Denmark

2005 etc
This change made 14:03, 30 December 2007 by 58.71.115.47 is vandalism. And i have no idea how i report it. Just thought you guys should know! --Rallefar (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

His nickname "Atterdag" is usually interpreted as "day again" (its literal meaning in Danish), but it is more likely a misinterpretation of the low German phrase "ter tage" ("these days"), which can best be interpreted as "what times we live in!" Can I ask why the Low German interpretation is more likely? After all, his significance for Denmark was enormous, so a nickname of "day again" (or perhaps better translated as "new dawn") makes perfect sense. --Twid 11:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. I have tried to moderate the sentence a little. I hope whoever wrote the part about the Low German can back it up with a quote. --dllu 12:42, 17 April 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 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Name of Queen
The name of his consort was added and linked here after her name then had been changed recently - and incorrectly - though an undiscussed page move to Hedwig of Schleswig. Her name - which was Helvig/Heilwig/Haelwig not Hedwig/Hedvig - had been given correctly in the article's text all along. I have put in a move request for her page today to try to correct this mess. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Waldemar Otherday exonym
Quoting Naming conventions (use English): "Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title."

It is not explicitly clear how "there is" should be interpreted, nor whether or not frequency of use in other sources is determinatively important. There is the above exonym for this person. I do not know its origin but it seems to be etymologically correct. I am reinstating it under the assumption that it can be safely assumed that "there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject" as per guideline. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is a etymological connection, but the meaning is certainly different. "Atter" is Danish for "again". The name could also possibly be a muddling of Low German "Ter Taghe". This is already explained in the article, under "Legacy". As for "exists", please provide a source.
 * Andejons (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Words do not always mean today what they have in the past. Sorry to have to remind you again, respectfully, that you are not qualified to tell us what is or is not correct English. As I have tried to guide you before, for your sake as well as for this project's, I sincerely feel it would be a good idea for you to avoid edits and discussions such as this one, where a better knowledge of English is required in order for you to contribute productively. You have so many other personal assets to apply here in your contributions, and your interest in correct work is certainly appreciated. This epithet is etymologically correct in every sense of both word parts. You have written yourself that it "exists". SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That there might be an etymological connection between "other" and "atter" (which there doesn't seem to be:, ) does not mean that it is a good or useful translation. And please show me 1) a source for this exonym and 2) where I have written that it exists other than at places that derive their content from Wikipedia.
 * Andejons (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know (though you don't care), I find it difficult to discuss the English language with you. Not constructive, not productive, not beneficial to the project. Your English is not at a "near-native level" no matter what you claim, with an obvious intent to over-impress, here. I am not saying this just to be nasty to you. Have asked you several times to stop professing to be an expert on the English language, which you by no means are. There are many examples of that, and I have done my best to clean up some of your Swenglish. Won't you please take my good advice on this? It's in very good faith. Your feeling for the words "other" and "exist", and your Swedish-inspired interpretations of them, reflect neither native nor near-native English. That makes it impossible to carry on a feasible discussion with you about them. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you don't have to put yourself in any difficulties by trying to discus with me: just provide a reliable source for "Otherday" and I will be satisfied.
 * Andejons (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This will suffice, I think, to prove that "there is" an exonym in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? I ask for a reliable source, and you do a Google-search which brings up scores of Wikipedia-derived content but little else?
 * Andejons (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. Perhaps you are an expert at what is and is not "Wikipedia-derived" and what is or is not "little else"? I fail to see, looking at this in a balanced manner, that that is the case here. Neither "Wikipedia-derived" nor "little else" apply. Please try to be neutral in your arguments! There is an exonym in this case. Above all, can we wait for the third opinion before editing the article again, please? You are edit-warring. What you want (besides being headstrong), with the fact check tag you've added now, is totally unclear. The Google searches show clearly that there is an exonym notwithstanding your arbitrary assessment of them. That's all we need here, in my opinion. We do not need to cite specific sources when it is clear that there is an exonym, and if there is an exonym we can post it in the article as per guideline above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Expert"? No, but I can tell when a page has copied content. Besides, it is not my responsibility to find a reliable source that can be inserted into the article – it's yours. A Google-search is, for several reasons, not good enough.
 * Andejons (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "For several reasons" associates to the verb "is", not to "not good enough" in the kind of Swenglish you write, while claiming to be at a "near-native level" of English. I just thought I'd give one of hundreds of examples of your work here at en.WP that the rest of us (with good English) have to clean up all the time in articles. That's what I mean (not to insult you) by saying that it's very hard to take you seriously when you want to tell us what is and isn't correct English, and why I have asked you several times to face up to your limitations (like we all must) and remove "near-native level" from your user page. People who know English but do not know Swedish are often at a loss - naturally! - to understand what is meant by this kind of Swenglish.
 * You are asking for a reliable source that an exonym exists which obviously does. That is going overboard. I seriously doubt, given your methods, whether or not you "can tell when a page has copied content" - what's to say that WP didn't copy the content - how do you prove such things? Your credibility, in my opinion, is at an alltime low. That will tend to have some bearing on this debate. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it exists here, and on about two dozens on mirrors. By that standard, however, I could insert any "exonym" on any page and claim that it "obviously exists". As for how I can see that a page is a word for word copy of another, I'm pretty sure I don't need to insult your intelligence by spelling it out.
 * Further, this discussion is not about my English, but whether you can provide a source for "Otherday". If you have some complaint to make about my edits in general, I suggest you take it to my talk page.
 * Andejons (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to be a historian, or in any way an expert on the matter, but in looking through everything I could find in the University of Edinburgh library databases, including Project Gutenberg and the history/classics database JSTOR, I could not find a single reference to a Valdemar/Waldemar "Otherday", but there were a good number of references to Valdemar Atterdag. That does not guarantee that no-one uses the translated exonym, but as far as I can tell, there is no precedent for using it in academic contexts. I hope that helps. –erudition FISH 20:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! As noted in my opening comment in this discussion, the question is how we should intepret the WP guideline. Do all those Google hits constitute a situation where "there is" an exonym according to the guideline, notwithstanding academic contexts? And is frequency of use to be seen as definitive at all, for exonyms, as per the wording of this guideline? In other words, if a number of readers obviously know (as per Google) that this king also is known in English as Waldemar Otherday, is it right for WP to exclude the exonym, or should we use it, as the guideline seems to allow (in my opinion)? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In principle, I would say that, as per the wording of the guideline, there would be reason to keep the exonym in the article. The problem I see is that not only is there no academic use of the name Otherday (and with all due respect, I don't think many people are going to be talking about Valdemar IV outside of an academic context, be it primary, secondary or higher education), but of the approximately 1,800 Google results on , which is a fairly low number for Google, the absolute majority were websites that explicitly base their content predominantly on Wikipedia, and in particular on this very article. Because of that, I ended up wondering where the exonym comes from (Chicken-and-egg situation), and so, it doesn't really seem like there is much use of the term Waldemar Otherday, academic or otherwise, apart from on WP.
 * I'm wondering, though, if it would be possible to keep the "Otherday" name in the introduction to the article, but instead of listing it as an English exonym, it could be listed instead as a translation of the Danish "Atterdag" (literally "another day" in English). Would that be a compromise that's acceptable to you both? –erudition FISH 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and etymoligically that would be quite correct. Though I see practically no difference really, here, between the terms "exonym" and "translation". Could that be why the exonym guideline is so generously worded? That is, why we might need to be considerate of the minority also, not just of the "majority [of] websites that explicitly base their content predominantly on Wikipedia" in a case like this? The fact that there is that minority would seem to confirm that there is an exonym, wouldn't it, and thus the guideline allow it as such? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against a translation being added to the introduction. However, "Otherday" is not a good translation of "Atterdag". If "atter" is indeed the Danish word (see the Legacy section of the article for a discussion of the name), it means "again".
 * And no, we should not consider websites that derives content from Wikipedia: if we do, we run the risk of original research or vandalism being turned into "truth", and names never before seen suddenly becoming established despite having been invented by someone a week ago.
 * Andejons (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with that. From what I could find, every website that uses the name "Otherday" is either directly taking its info from WP, or very likely doing so. The only site I found that didn't explicitly or obviously do so was findagrave.com, but unless that website is the origin of the name, then the only logical conclusion is that it too takes its information from here. All the rest seem to be either drawing on WP, or just accidentally writing "otherday" when they meant "other day", talking about something entirely different.
 * And I have to admit, I hadn't read the Legacy section of the article before now, but considering what is written there, "Otherday" does not seem like an accurate translation of a name that was most likely intended to mean "day again" or "day once more".
 * So, while I in principle would be in favour of keeping an exonym listed, in this particular case, "Otherday" doesn't seem to an exonym that anyone really uses in academia or otherwise, except for on websites that use it because it is listed on WP.
 * –erudition FISH 12:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry, since we now have two editors here whose first language is not English ("websites that derives" = more Swenglish) telling us what is and is not correct English (I hate that!), I've had to add 5 citation tags to the Legacy section they are quoting for their now common argument. What you both are arguing is utterly unsourced, probably some additional jibberish on the part of a non-English author or two and will not hold water here. Waldemar Otherday is an etymogically uncontestable exonym for Valdemar Atterdag, whether or not you want to call it an exonym or a translation. I strongly believe (no offence!) that you need to have a more comprehensive grasp of the English language to see how good it is, understanding the full meaning and various applications, then and now, of the word other in this context ( = another; yet one; new day; different kind of day; what a day; give us a better day; of another time etc etc etc). SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, English is my native language, and I'm working as a professional translator specifically from nordic languages to English.
 * Second, the etymology of the word "Other" is not really what's being debated. What I am saying is that the name "Otherday" does not confer the same meaning as the Danish "Atterdag", and most importantly, there is extremely little evidence of any use of the name "Otherday" apart from websites that clearly derive information from WP, meaning it hardly qualifies as an exonym, and therefore does not really belong in the article, unless you can provide evidence of the name's use from a reputable source, or at least one that predates the inclusion of the name in this article. This is not a dispute of etymology or linguistics, it is one of verifiable information.
 * –erudition FISH 14:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize sincerely. I misunderstood when you wrote to Andejons in Norwegian at sv.WP.
 * Then our opinions, yours and mine, are at odds here. I was upset that you bought that unsourced stuff in the "Legacy" section hook line and sinker (according to what you wrote above). Perhaps you, as I, also have worked etymologically? I think Otherday is as exact for Atterdag as ever can be. The basic original word forms are identical.
 * As you suggested, as long as you and my opponent are open to the idea of including an epithet translation (if not an established exonym) in the lede (better than the strange stuff in "Legacy"), the exactest possible meaning of "otherday" seems indeed to be relevant to what we are discussing. SergeWoodzing (talk)
 * What I'm wondering is this: If the purpose of including the English "Otherday" in the lede of the article is is to include a translation of the Danish epithet, presumably to make the article more clear to English-speaking readers with no knowledge of Danish, why does the translation have to be in the form of an English epithet? Why not simply provide a translation as close as possible to the meaning of the original in plain English, for example like the lede to the article on Harald III of Norway/Harald Hardrada?
 * –erudition FISH 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation sources
Translation of Waldemar's epithet needs to be sourced with English language sources, not with Swedish sources where neither an English translation nor any text in Danish is specified or mentioned. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources are there for the interpretations. Translating the interpretations is not particularly difficult.
 * Andejons (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain my viewpoint and am reversing you again. If the English translation is not given in your sources - that is the English words are not there - you cannot cite those sources to substantiate the translation. I do not find that translation correct, and you are non-English-speaking. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do speak English – that should be obvious. You might not like the English I speak, though. And I'd be very interested to hear how the translations were incorrect.
 * Andejons (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what I mean (1) your "near-native level English" on your Swedish user page is far from correct and (2) to avoid unreasonable debate, I will not discuss anything re: the English language with you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have researched this and found two sources which I feel may help clear up the issue. Here is one which includes the English translation of "Valdemar Atterdag" as "ever-day". This source mentions that Valdemar was given the surname "Atterdag" because he commonly said "des dages!" which means "what times!". Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! What is the year of publication of the latter book with "des dages"? My computer took too long to find the first pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would use the following template to source the article, since it puts the citation into the proper format automatically, and all you have to do is fill out the fields. (I filled out the ones I found information for.)
 * To answer your question, the book was published in 1998 by Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will now just add in these sources since nobody has yet done so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will now just add in these sources since nobody has yet done so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Creditors
It would be nice to know which princes, monarchs and emperors, had mortgages on the Danish territory. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.140.35 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"Final pieces" - ?
What does that section heading mean? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)