Ivar Halfdansson Vidfamne, King of Sweden - Alternative data from Merges

?

Perhaps look at the heading if you're confused. Not sure there's more to explain.

Maybe you should let Harald Tveit Alvestrand do the work, since he is the curator on the profile.

On a personal note I would say that there are several mistakes in what you say in your first text.

Sweden as a kingdom didn't exist before 1275, that is 600 years later than Ivar lived. So he could not be a king of Sweden, nor could he be a king of Denmark, because that kingdom didn't exist when he lived either.

A Birth surname can not be "King of Gardarige King if Gardarige", since he proabaly couldn't be born as a king. King is not a name either, it is a title.

His existens hasn't been proved hostorically, so he may be fictional.

The main stories written about him is written by Snorre Sturlason more than 600 years after the time he supposedly lived.

His surname can only be Halfdanson since he supposedly is the son of Halfdan. The rest is a title and should be part of his mane.

I find it very interesting that he dies in 647 and is burried in 700. That is 53 years between the 2 events.........???

Most of what is written about him is probably pure fictional stories and in my opinion he should be marked as a spurious profile.

Correction: .....His surname can only be Halfdanson since he supposedly is the son of Halfdan. The rest is a title and should not be part of his name......

The "about me" is pretty good for this profile (as saga figures go) - the source sagas are named and quoted.
I'm not fond of Hervarar Saga myself, but the sagas don't seem to contradict each other much.
It seems common to refer to anyone who is said to have dominated the area around Uppsala as "king of Sweden". The tree is inconsistent about using the last name field for the "most commonly known by" name and the patronymic; for some people, they are not mentioned in the sagas by patronymic at all, but it's useful to keep their fathers' name around (if mentioned in the sagas) to keep apart peole with similar names.

Remi Trygve Pedersen & Tony Hole I think you might be missing the point

1) Resolving the outstanding Data Conflicts (left over from a merge/s that somebody else did before) ACCORDING TO HARALD'S MPed DATA is done as a COURTESY to Harald, because it prevents another of the 900 managers resolving it according to the data they prefer, before he can get there.

2) Keeping a RECORD of the extra unused data in this thread, is a way of letting Harald and the other managers look over it in their own time, in case there is data in it that they might have wanted to look into. (As apparently there was, in this case – Remi). I have no opinion at all on the veracity of the data. I was doing the extra work of saving it, as a favour to y’all :-)

I never resolve data conflicts if I don't know what the correct values are, and in any case: put difference if you want to write it done onto the profile itself instead of a public discussion.

Surely the point about the MP is that those are the correct values according to its Curator?

Sorry, typos!
Putting the extra data onto this Discussion is intended to encourage research if there are managers invested in the extra or alternative information.

Putting it onto the profile is unlikely to be noticed; and it entrenches information that actually contradicts the MPs details.

This is simply a record of info that other managers thought might be correct.
It need be nothing more. As a researcher, I find this useful to have, if there is ever a query about the data on the profile.

Im not missing any point, it was just a ? from youre start.
But iam still reading:)

:-)

Sharon,
I think your method is better than adding to the About Me as there is also a potential that the About Me data is changed or deleted which cannot happen to a discussion.

One possible draw back is that you are "spamming" the public discussions board.
Perhaps you could achieve the same goal without the spam by setting up a Project - "Sharon's clearing house" then start a project discussion for each profile that you merge. A @mergedprofile will notify the managers of that profile that a discussion has been started...won't it?

Hmm, is spamming happening, Alex? That's a thought.
I'd presumed Discussions started from profiles only appear on the Discussion boards of people curating, managing; following; or connected by projects to that profile. Maybe I presume that because I choose "Discussions I'm Following' as my Default option, and those are the only new ones that automatically appear there.

Your project idea is not something I'd see as worth that much of my time, I'm afraid, although I appreciate you giving it some thought :-). Resolving Data Conflicts is boring admin work (just wait ! :-) that I see as part of my Curator job - not something I do for fun :-) So I'm not invested in resolving all the Data Conflicts I can - I just do it as a courtesy to other curators on MPs that pop up in an area I happen to be working on.

At the moment, I'm working on the Medieval Scots, and the Norse Earls of Orkney - http://www.geni.com/projects/Medieval-Scotland/12063 (punt punt, for help :-), so was following this profile and saw it hadn't had it's data conflicts resolved for a while, and, if I recall correctly, they seemed to be accumulating.

I record Alternative Data because I actually think Geni should have a function that keeps that record, in case; - but that might just be my 'historian' bent. But for now, Discussions linked to the profile seem a good way to 'file' them - as the poor Geni staff are already inundated by Curator demands for tweaks to the programme. :-)
I've been thanked for doing it before, but never imagined people would object, and that still seems rather petty to me. Oh well, you can't please everyone; can only try your best :-)

I check Public Discussions most days not just Discussions I Follow, other people must too as usually one or two people reply to my public discussions :) My project discussions are usually pretty one sided affairs.
Can't help with medieval Scots still neck deep in medieval Hungarian/Croatian nobility. I can tell you how Scotland got it's name but i'm sure you already know that.
To coin a phrase "ttfn".

Have you ever checked if a profile have discussion topics attached to it?
Have you ever seen it unless you deliberate looks for it?

That is the main reason why I reacted on this method.

Bjorn, I do it all the time if I'm working on the About Me, (that's why we asked Geni to add the Number of unread Discussions onto the Discussions tab on the profile)
and then sometimes I call people like you to other discussions: http://www.geni.com/discussions/111754 to give me advice too. :-) :-)

Bjorn, I didn't normally check the discussions tab on profiles. Now that I understand how useful it is, I check routinely. There's some real treasure buried in some of them.

I would like to see the counter show the number of discussions, not just the unread discussions. I think that would help people remember to look.

@Ivar Halfdansson

Middle Name Halfdansson ; "Vidfame"
Surname Vidfamne; KING OF THE DANES ; Halfdansson
Birth Surname Vidfamne

Using Vidfamne as his Birth Surname is probably not correct. He most certainly got that "name" in his adulthood or after his death. Vidfamne means to either reach or fathom wide, and is not a "name" he was born with or got around his birth. It should be looked upon as a nickname the same way Haarfage is used on the norwegian that united Norway to one Kingdom.

I changed him around to be Ivar "Vidfamne" Halfdansson. The only reason I see to fill in the "birth surname" of profiles from this age is to make sure there's something in the field to conflict with at mergers - so I usually fill in a copy of whatever is in the "surname" field. The sources dont' give surnames - they give nicknames, titles or "son of XXX".

That looks a lot better.

But it it correct to use the title King of Sweden in 647?
Wasn't he just a pettyking over Skåne, - even if Snorre claims a larger area?
Anyhow, - Sweden as a kingdom did not exist at that time

"King in Sweden" would probably be more appropriate. Changed.

:-)