Talk:Hörgr

The details in this paragraph could do with some references. --Dependent Variable.

or at least a crossreference to Gallagher -- Vaevictus (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fir isn't native to Scandinavia, so how could they use a pile of fir branches as a hlaut-tein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.122.254 (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is because the meaning of fir has changed in modern times. Originally, it referred to pinus species, whereas today it refers abies species.--Berig (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Might be unrelated, but today the spruce (gran) and fir (æ/ä/edelgran) have very similar names in Scandinavia. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The refs in this article don't seem too complete, so I'm tagging for refimprove. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. They're separate subjects with plenty of information to be added to their own articles. There's no reason to conflate the two. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. Not appropriate for merging, should be dealt with separately. –Holt (T•C) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. The overlapping uses of the terms in different times and in different places, and the relation of both to the issue of Heathen hofs are important data to be covered. But that's not to say that the best way to do that is to cover the usually more specific word under the usually broader word.Yngvadottir (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this article be lying at hǫrgr? --Harald Khan Ճ 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the software reads the ogonek as an ö; if you put Hǫrgr in the search box, it suggests this article. So not necessary as a redirect, and I believe policy is that an article shouldn't have a main title that is that hard to type correctly. But if you really like using ogoneks, make the redirect.Yngvadottir (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a red link in my text above, so I disagree about the redirects. Is though the "ö" easier to type? It is for me, but how about English keyboards for instance? And just how correct is it to replace the "ǫ" with an "ö"? --Harald Khan Ճ 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You could go ahead and make the redirect, but as I say, the search box suggests hörgr anyway, so I don't see the utility unless someone is adding hǫrgr to articles. ǫ (the ogonek article tells me it is technically o caudata in Old Norse) appears among the edit symbols below the edit summary box and "save page" button below, but other than that it cannot be typed on any keyboard so far as I know; one has to copy and paste it, although some fonts do now include it. ö is easier; it can be typed on an English keyboard using an alt-code plus the numberpad, or using a code starting with &. For that reason, as I understand it, Icelanders standardized ö and did not hold out for ǫ.Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a note, this site in Norway—as well as other appropriate archaeological finds—needs to be handled by this article in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, agreed, and about time, too. Source: https://www.lindholm.no/resources/PDF-til-nedlasting/ranheim.pdf . T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hörgr. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225031159/http://www.sofi.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1472 to http://www.sofi.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1472

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) 16:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply