Vikings is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Vikings is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland
This article lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.PiracyWikipedia:WikiProject PiracyTemplate:WikiProject PiracyPiracy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Swedish archeological investigations[1][2] show that Vikings had horrible dental health – odontogenic infections and tooth decay were common. Majority of vikings were likely plagued by permanent toothaches. I wanted to add this to the article, but found no suitable location.
It could be good to have a section on viking health, including dental health.
Edit: then again, other sources report that vikings had good dental hygiene and remarkably advanced dentistry practices.[3][4] DrUtrecht (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This doesn’t strike me as something that belongs in the main article or is even notable or generalizable.—-Ermenrich (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The vikings in-fact didn’t have horns on their helmets that was made up centuries later by illustrators 2A02:C7C:6A51:4300:8928:439C:7CB0:A016 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
We can credit that to an opera producer, actually. The ancient Britons, on the other hand, did wear horns on their heads. Not helmets though, but more often the entire skull of an animal, skin and all. Not for battle either but as costumes for a religious, druidic festival that we still celebrate today... just 30 days from now in fact. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The viking culture is non existend, its the germanic culture within the northern tribes. Viking was merely an occupation within the northern germanic culture, this should better be shown for accurate information. It should atleast be mentioned that the vikings were from the germanic tribes 84.104.178.192 (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Before even the opening paragraph of the lead, there's a hatnote that makes it clear that the Vikings were North Germanic Norsemen. Remsense诉 07:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"The masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around" -> delete this sentence.
Rationale: The source does not support this sentence. "This would be the original sense of the feminine víking, and from it, the masculine would be derived" -> the source only presented 1 scenerio where the masculine form is derived from the feminine form. Overgeneralizing it is an original synthesis. I've read the source carefully and did not find that the source supports this claim anywhere. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:EDA0:1EFB:E4CB:1F6A (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I have been looking into this since the IP editor posted a query at the reference desk (RD). The whole "Original meaning and derivation of the word Viking" section could be improved, but I don't see a problem with "The masculine is more easily derived from the feminine than the other way around". The original version of the queried text was added here at 15:45, 26 March 2015. The source is
My explanation at the RD was that Heide and his sources are arguing that there are examples of masculine words like víkingr being derived from feminine words like viking (according to researchers in Old Norse), but not the other way round. Three key quotes are on page 43 Askeberg says: "I do not know any example of a masculine ing-derivation having given origin to a feminine nomen actionis that expresses the person’s action, and such a formation seems unreasonable. A hildingr m. 'king' can not be supposed to have given origin to a *hilding f. 'the quality of being a king' etc" on page 44 Askeberg points out that deverbative ing-derivations are considered younger than the word víkingr, and that it is unlikely that feminine verbal abstracts in so early times could be formed from strong verbs, like víka. and 45 On the other hand, a masculine víkingr 'sea warrior' could well be derived from a feminine víking denoting an activity. Old Norse parallels to such a development would be vellingr m. 'pottage' from *velling f. 'boiling'; geldingr m. 'a castrated ox or ram' from gelding f. 'castration'; [etc.].TSventon (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
TSventon Again, they present 1 example of a masculine word being derived from a feminine word. Where does it say that the masuline is more easily derived from the feminine in general? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E1D5:4325:36B7:C2A5 (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
"Askeberg points out that deverbative ing-derivations are considered younger than the word víkingr, and that it is unlikely that feminine verbal abstracts in so early times could be formed from strong verbs, like víka" -> this sentence does not prove your point. They're talking about the derivation from the word "víka". This sentence actually contradicts your claim. It says the word "víkingr" (masuline) came first.
Consensus cannot be made if there is no one to debate it with. How am I supposed to reach consensus? 63.73.199.69 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, you pinged me but I don't have the requisite knowledge here to feel comfortable deciding. I'll post on WP:WikiProject Linguistics to ask. Remsense‥论 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The first thing I'll say is that the entire etymology section is extremely bloated and needs to be whittled down... a lot. I mean three paragraphs should be plenty, seven at the outside. No need to have it so big it needs to be divided into subsections, that's just nuts. Unless this article were about the word itself, etymology is not extremely relevant to the subject of this article, which is about the people. Encyclopedias are about things, not words (unless the word is the subject of the article). Don't get me wrong, it's interesting to know where words come from and etymology is a huge interest of mine, so it does merit some explanation, but this section has gotten way out of hand. The etymology section reads more like a textbook rather than a brief summary.
For example, when talking in terms of feminine or masculine, the average reader is likely to confuse that with terms that are used to describe men versus women (for example, prince versus princess), but that's not what we're talking about. It's more like describing Latin words where masculine words denote that which is doing (words ending in -us), neutral words which denote that which is having done to it (words ending in -um), and the feminine, which is the act of doing itself (words ending in -a). This is because languages like Latin, Norse, and German are very synthetic languages and not very order-specific. For example, if I say in Latin "dog bites man" it could mean either one did the biting; the order of the words doesn't mean much. You have to add the proper suffixes to let the reader know it was the man doing the biting (Dog-um bites man-us). English is a very analytic language, so words are not masculine or feminine in this sense. English is very order-specific, so if we want to convey that the man did the biting, man must come first in the sentence (man bites dog). The entire concept of feminine or masculine words is very foreign to English and not at all intuitive to English readers.
Getting this textbook-deep into the matter is just confusing and unfair to the general reader unless we explain these deeper linguistic differences. It's just too deep for a brief, easily-understandable summary. This all really stems from back in the days where Dan kept coming here hyper-focused on the word as if it was the same as the thing, which it's not.
Etymology is far from an exact science. Linguists come up with their theories, which often conflict with each other, and they tend to disagree very adamantly. (Not that different from taxonomists.) When we get this deep we need to start explaining that so-and-so said this while what's-his-face said that, and this other person says this other thing, etc. I think it's best if we just altogether omit these fine details and paint this picture in far broader strokes. It'll be far easier to read and comprehend that way. If anyone feels the need to get into all these finer points then it would be best to create Viking (word) and incorporate it all there. Zaereth (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've really addressed the IP's proximate concern. If the sentence in question is undue minutiae (I would probably agree), shouldn't it be removed anyway? Remsense‥论 05:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Remsense It's not just undue minutiae. The source doesn't support the claim anywhere. 1 example does not mean one can overgeneralize it. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:8842:9163:CF6F:B64F (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I think, along with a ton of other details. Zaereth (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and cut the entire section down to size, does it seem alright? Remsense‥论 05:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm happy with the change. I know you're asking Zaereth, but I just want say that I'm satisfied. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:8842:9163:CF6F:B64F (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm equally glad you are! Glad I could help. Remsense‥论 19:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but it was approaching midnight where I am so I needed to go to bed. Yes, that's exactly along the lines of what I was thinking. If someone wants to get really deep into it, they can always create an article about the word where there's room to expand on things like "masculine" and "feminine" in a way that it will be fully coherent. All we really need here is a brief summary of that article, which it looks like you did a great job of. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I concur that Viking (word) is a viable article. I always like when we can have proper articles about terms—remind me to link this discussion the next time I get highly opinionated about an undue terminological tangent in some article. I always worry, but I guess given my major contributions it's unlikely people would accuse me of having some zealous hatred for lexicography.Remsense‥论 20:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2025 and 26 July 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdpuff19(article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Jdpuff19 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Nitpick
Hi, the lead opens "Vikings were a seafaring people originally from Scandinavia (present-day Denmark, Norway, and Sweden), who from the late 8th to the late 11th centuries raided, pirated, traded, and settled throughout parts of Europe. They voyaged as far as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, Greenland, and Vinland (present-day Newfoundland in Canada, North America)." I just wonder why Iceland is not included here (as it is further down). Isn't it in the same geographical/exploration category as Greenland and Vinland? Besides, the Icelanders also participated in mainland raiding, making them 'vikings', if the sagas are to be believed. I'll just be bold and pop it in there. T 2A02:FE1:E180:3900:CD6C:B065:6F71:74A0 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
It says "originally", Iceland is essentially a colony, the population being made up of Norse and Celtic settlers. TylerBurden (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Iceland would come under "as far as", but it is not one of the most distant destinations. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
embrio of russia
hi i think it’s misleading to say embrio of russia. i propose “made settlements in what would then become kievan rus”. saying that rus and russia are etymologically the same is just playing dumb 2003:CC:3707:7200:7147:8C33:3193:CB85 (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
It looks OK and has a good reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the wording is problematic. Three modern countries derive from Kyivan Rus - referring only to Russia perpetuates the Russian imperial narrative.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, there was no Belarusian or Ukrainian dynasty descended from the Vikings. The "Russian imperial narrative" is pretending that there was no Scandinavian influence on Russian state-formation. See for example this which notes the "Russian–Scandinavian cultural symbiosis" that was formed and became prevalent until the crusades in the Baltic. Mellk (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed per IP and Ermenrich. The statement is an accurate paraphrase of Brink's text, given in the ref note, but here it is misleading because it omits essential parts of the story. Carlstak (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
What is russia? Russia is more about mongols and their legacy. Embrio of Russia are folks of following slaved folks: khakas, yugur, tuvan, karakalpak, Chuvash, turkmen, Tatar, bashkir, gagauz, Uyghur, nogai, karachay-Ballard, sakha, dolman, kumuk, etc.
Definitely vikings influenced on Kyivan Ruś which is part of Ukranian history, but not moskow kingdom (russia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-70049 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
This discussion is based on one definition of embryo, not the only one. One of the definitions in OED is "A thing (material or immaterial) in its most basic or rudimentary form, showing potential to develop." and gives an example by H. G. Wells: "Brunner Mond & Co. was only the embryo of I.C.I.". Brunner Mond was only one of the companies which became I.C.I., which is now part of Tata. This is similar to the usage here. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Why should Russia be singled out when it's one of three countries descended from Kievan Rus'? It's not like Kievan Rus' was ever a unified polity anyway.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
I do not think the original text implied that only Russia descended from Kievan Rus'. Belarus and Ukraine became integral parts of Poland and Lithuania, while Russia was still ruled by the same dynasty with some of the same customs as before (hence "embryo" makes sense here). Maybe there is a better way to rephrase this? Mellk (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)