# Talk:Fenrir

I changed redirections so that Fenris now redirects to Fenrisulfr, not the other way round. There never was a creature called Fenris (Fenris is a genitive) and Fenrir, which would be the correct nominative doesn't occur. Who or whatever Fenrir may have been, he is only found in the compound Fenrisulfr. Io 13:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense although usually colloquially referred to in English as Fenrir. Sjc 17:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that the article should be titled "Fenrir." I am as much a fan as anybody of referring to things accurately (and I even speak a little Swedish), but an English encyclopedia should use the commonly accepted English spelling. According to dictionary.com there is no definition for "Fenrisulfr", but the following is listed for "Fenrir":
Fen·rir (fɛnrɪr) –noun Scandinavian Mythology. A wolflike monster, a son of Loki and Angerboda, chained by Gleipnir but destined to be released at Ragnarok to eat Odin and to be killed by Vidar. Also called Fen·ris-wolf. Aaron Benson 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if you prefer. Both Fenrir and Fenrisulfr (but not Fenris) occur in the Eddas (Io was mistaken above). Haukur 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This passage:
"It is prophesied that at Ragnarök the wolf will at last break free and join forces with the enemies of the gods and will then devour Odin himself. After that Viðarr, Odin's son, will slay the wolf to avenge his father, either with a sword through the heart, or by tearing apart the wolf after placing one foot shod with a special shoe on its lower jaw and one hand on its upper jaw."
almost duplicates one near the beginning.  One of the two should be deleted. Pdn 00:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The last image makes the page look whacked (it was below the categories).  I'm never very good at fixing the way these things look, so someone may want to take a look at it.  I did remove the Narnia and Potter stuff from the bottom, created the disambig at the top and create an article for Fenris Ulf.  Wikibofh 21:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Mythology pages tend to accrue fancruft. I already removed something about Fenrir being a "summonable monster" in some computer game. Can you say "not notable"? As for the pictures the problem isn't that we have too many pictures - it's that the text is too short. I'll try to expand the article, clean it up and provide references. That should fix the *whacked* effect. - Haukurth 22:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good.  I didn't know anything about this before Random Page brought me here, so no way to expand the article. Thanks for taking a look at it.  Wikibofh 23:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought one of them chased the moon and the other chased the sun. This article makes it seem like they both chase the sun and Hati also chases the moon.71.140.3.78 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll add something about his role in Mike Carey's Lucifer. Is there anything else to add?
Max Elstein 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
How about the evil warewolf "Fenrir Greyback" Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.124.197 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 

I thought the same. I'll add a reference, feel free to revert it if there is some difference I may have overlooked. Andreas Willow (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If the Harry Potter appearance is a significant retelling of the Fenrir myth, then it might be worth a mention here, but if it's just another case of "author casts around for a wolf-like name when naming a character, and thinks of 'Fenrir'", with no further connection, then it doesn't really add anything to the article to mention it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A short sentence saying it is used is relevant I feel, regardless of the lack of retelling of the myth - the books did have quite an impact. ~ Amory (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a summary that I think will solve the issue. It may not be necessary, but it wouldn't hurt in both cases to have a reference with page number noting their first appearances in their respective sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


### No, seriously, remove the cruft
Ok, seriously, this 'modern influences' section is of such variable quality that I'd be tempted to simply eject all of it.  To whit:
"Fenrir has been depicted in the artwork "Odin and Fenris" (1909) and "The Binding of Fenris" (around 1900) by Dorothy Hardy, "Odin und Fenriswolf" and "Fesselung des Fenriswolfe" (1901) by Emil Doepler, and is the subject of the metal sculpture "Fenrir" by A. V. Gunnerud located on the island of Askøy, Norway.[2]"
Are these pieces of artwork especially notable as depictions of Fenrir for some reason?  I mean, I'm sure I can come up with other works of art that depict Fenrir, and listing every single painting or drawing ever done with Fenrir as the subject is simply ludicrous.  I've honestly never even heard of these artists before.  One might think the inclusion of images of their artwork is sufficient, we don't need to enumerate every artist ever to set paint to canvas on the subject.  And this is the *best* of the material in this section.
"Fenrir appears in modern literature in the poem "Om Fenrisulven og Tyr" (1819) by Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger (collected in Nordens Guder), the novel Der Fenriswolf by K. H. Strobl, and Til kamp mod dødbideriet (1974) by E. K. Reich and E. Larsen.[2]"
Are these retellings of the myth?  Otherwise, why are they at all significant to be enumerated specifically?  This honestly looks like a fanboy decided to cite some fiction he'd been reading.  'Appearing' in a work of fiction should not be sufficient to merit inclusion in a wikipedia article, certainly not if the work isn't well-known in the english-speaking world.
"Wolf-like characters bearing names inspired by Fenrir sometimes appear in modern fiction, including Fenris Ulf in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950) by C. S. Lewis, and Fenrir Greyback in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005) by J. K. Rowling."
I'm torn, because the books are at least arguably notable.  But surely not because they happen to name a wolf character Fenrir.  
"Fenrir is used as the name of the motorcycle driven by Cloud Strife in the 2005 film Final Fantasy VII Advent Children, and is also used as the name of the badge he wears on his right shoulder and earring."
This is absolutely useless.  In fact, I'm deleting this line from the article right now.
There should really be standards for this sort of thing, something like:

Artwork: Must be a notable and critically acclaimed piece of art which depicts not only the character but key elements of the myth.  (Art listed would seem to fail notable)
Fiction: Must be a notable retelling of the myth.  Simply using the name is insufficient, nor is a work that is not notable even if it does retell the myth.  I think the standard on notable is probably the english-speaking world, since this is the english wikipedia - other language wikipedias should have similar standards for the relevant populations.  (I find it hard to believe that a book whose name isn't in english is notable for the english-speaking world, since even classics are rarely referred to by their proper original language names in general settings).
--76.223.3.195 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with your removal of the unreferenced (and extremely minor) Final Fantasy reference to Fenrir, I disagree about the removal of the rest. First of all, it's fully referenced. Secondly, the appearance and influence of Norse mythology through the ages is  subject of scholarly interest and study (for example, Old Norse-Icelandic Literature by Heather O'Donoghue spends a lot of time talking about specific appearances and references into the modern age) and, as long as it's referenced, it needs to remain. In fact, I'd say it needs to be expanded upon. As for the fact that you've never heard of the artists, this is probably because most of these references to Norse figures were made in Scandinavia and Germany in the 19th century, and the source listing a lot of them is German. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because something is referenced does not make it worthy for inclusion.  Lots of minor, non-noteworthy facts are reference-capable, and even if someone took the time to fully document those things I'd argue for axing them because they're not noteworthy.  Your 'as long as its referenced' standard is not a standard, its just carte blanche for any fanboy with too much time on his hands to add totally useless bits of trivia to the page.
Second, scholarly interest is insufficient reason to include something for an encyclopedia entry on the subject.  Scholarly interest will always be deeper and rely on sources more obscure than an encyclopedia because of its scope and aims.  Not that I am convinced any of those works of art or fiction are of any scholarly interest as they pertain to Fenrir.  (In fact, I am reasonably certain Harry Potter and C.S. Lewis, while possibly or certainly the subject of scholarly interest, are not so because of the appearance of a character named Fenrir).  The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to reconstruct the full minutiae of a scholarly field, just to cover its topics broadly so that a person unfamiliar with the topic can get an overview and a place to start.
Third, if they're only referenced in scandinavian and german works, then its apparent they aren't notable to the relevant population, which for the English wikipedia would be the world's English-speaking population.  Being French didn't stop, e.g., Monet's work from becoming well-known to the English-speaking public, and minor French painters no one's heard of have as little right to be cited in an article because of their subject matter as minor German or Scandinavian ones do.
I also wonder how notable the books are to the german or scandinavian population.  (Did the novels make the best-seller list?  If I asked 1000 random Germans or Scandinavians, would any of them have heard of the relevant work(s)? How many?)  And again, is their use of Fenrir noteworthy?
I am incapable of verifying the noteworthiness of those books.  I can verify that CS Lewis and Harry Potter, no matter how notable as popular fiction, do not belong on this page because its just a random wolf character that happens to share the name (and no more notable than the FF movie reference i deleted with respect to Fenrir).  I am unqualified to comment on the noteworthiness of the paintings, other than to state I've never heard of them, and have mild knowledge of art history.  I would be far more comfortable with them (and the non-english fiction) if someone would justify their presence on the page by stating why they are noteworthy (with citation).
Edit: You do make an important point.  "The appearance and influence of Norse mythology through the ages" is a relevant subject.  I'm asking that we restrict the section to things which actually deal with the *mythology* of Fenrir, and do so in a notable way.
--76.223.3.195 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the influence of mythological figures in the modern world is very notable, especially when works of art are composed about them. Of course, if you asked most people on the street in the US what a Fenrir is, they'd have no clue. In Scandinavia it's a different story. The "I've never heard of it" test is pointless. The only thing English Wikipedia is aimed at is people who speak English, no matter where they are. The heyday for depicting and writing poetry about this stuff was the late 19th century. Anyway, I think the section is pretty solid, informative, useful, and I see no reason to scrape it. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your post-script edit to your previous post; I tend to agree, which is why I dislike the Final Fantasy mention. I think what we have up there is pretty solidly about the mythological Fenrir. Of course, I think I can excuse the C. S. Lewis and Rowling mentions, as there's an obvious influence, and they are pretty notable works. Yet when someone talks about some tiny anime mention of Fenrir, that's when things get troublesome. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I did some digging.  Dorothy Hardy is so unnoteworthy she doesn't even have a wikipedia page, nor can i find information on the artist via google search.  Emil Doepler's wiki page does little to convince me he was actually notable at all, and he seems to have been a book illustrator... Which means his work is about on par with modern picture book illustrators and, quite honestly, comic books.  Sadly, I don't own a relevant book to give a modern illustrator example of a depiction of Fenrir (none of my mythology books have pictures...), but I think we'd agree a modern book illustration's artist wouldn't merit special mention.
The Rowling character shares absolutely nothing with the fictional character.  The CS Lewis character is even worse, as he's actually non-existent.  The name cited wasn't used by Lewis, but by American publishers who changed the name (for whatever reason) for books sold in the states.  As they've gone to using the original name in the states, no book with that name has been published in 25 years.  So the claim as represented is *inaccurate*, because the name was not used by Lewis, and is no longer in use at all.
Finally, all these references violate WP:OR, because they are citing the works directly and not a secondary source.  As such, the entire section merits deletion.
Edit: regarding works of art on mythological subjects being notable - there's whole swathes of online artist blogs and galleries dedicated to mythological themes.  None of them qualify as notable.  Citing one of those would lead to claims of non-notability and 'self-promotion' (they'd assume I was the artist because i had the temerity to post it).
--76.223.3.195 (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, attempts to find out things about Dorothy Hardy can be found over on Commons.[1] Haukur (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think all that we have there right now is notable. Not that it matters, but the entire section is currently attributed to a secondary source. Check the reference. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It is, but the secondary source is not used to advance the claim that those appearances of Fenrir are notable (which is the implicit claim being forwarded by including them on a page about Fenrir and not, for example, a page about the works in question or the creators of said works).
I am removing the C.S. Lewis citation because it is wrong, and the JK Rowlings citation because it has nothing to do with the subject of the article other than sharing a name, a fact which is hardly notable, and the use in which it is being cited most definitely violates WP:OR (ie, supporting the claim: Fenrir is used to inspire names in modern fiction).  I'll leave the others for now, and am creating a different sub-heading to deal with the nature of the citation.
--76.223.3.195 (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been 1 month and no one has provided citations as to the notability of anything in this section.  In fact, someone *re-added* the cruft about Harry Potter without even commenting on this page - which clearly doesn't belong here.  (Mere mentioning of the name leading to a listing takes us so far down a slippery slope that just about anything could be mentioned).  
Anyway, 1 month is plenty of time for someone to have done something proactive.  Barring citations to that effect, I'm going to assume that the works are not notable.  (The cited paintings/drawings are all on the page anyway I believe, so don't need an independent mention). --69.209.68.87 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC) (Same person as 76.223.3.195 above)

Remaining 'modern influences' section has a secondary source, but there's no evidence that supports the assertion that these works of art or fiction are at all notable in the context of Fenrir.  Citation needs to have a claim from it advanced regarding the notability of these items relative to the page topic, or the entire section should be deleted.  (Implicit claim by their even being on the page is that they are notable occurences of Fenrir in art and literature). --76.223.3.195 (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This section covers the influence of the myth in modern times. Anyway, the section is perfectly fine; it's well referenced and it's absurd to claim that we require a reference noting the works as "notable" for it to remain. The fact that Simek lists the works is notable enough. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Simek?  Who?
Remember this is the English wikipedia.  Thus, either it is notable amongst the english-speaking public, or it is notable for scholarly reasons, or it doesn't belong on this page.  If either of the first two reasons apply, providing a source proving their notability *as a retelling or depiction of the Fenrir myth* (with a short blurb about why they're notable) shouldn't be at all hard.  Recognizing those works instead of random fanfiction and deviant art links should mean those works are somehow notable, which is OR without a citation.
The only thing that's well referenced is that they exist.
I also wouldn't call early 19th century 'modern'.  In fact, I wouldn't call anything pre-1945 'modern'.
Finally, these 'modern influences' sections are generally a bad idea because they encourage useless contributions and OR.  Its not absurd to require citations because an item's presence in such a section is making an implicit claim - that these appearances are *notable* *in the context of the page* (eg, Fenrir).  That claim requires a citation or it is OR.  You may note I extensively deconstructed the artist's credentials above - one of them is so unnoteworthy as to not even have a *page*.  Of the writers, the only one I found a page for didn't even have a *mention* of his work cited here on his page - clearly this work was not notable in the context of its writer - why should it be notable in the context of its subject matter?
--69.209.68.87 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Note, the cited Simek work is primarily a work on linguistics, not mythology per se.  As such, his citing of particular fenrir stories may have absolutely nothing to do with their notability regarding Fenrir, and everything to do with their choice of words.  Someone who owns the work should be able to summarize why they are notable *in the context of fenrir* in a sentence, but the nature of Simek's book makes it doubtful that he is citing them for reasons other than linguistics.--69.209.68.87 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
No, Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology is not "primarily a work on linguistics," it is a dictionary on Germanic mythology and Germanic paganism. To be clear, Norse mythology is a branch of Germanic mythology. As I said, if it's notable enough for Simek to list, then it's certainly notable enough for us to have it here. English Wikipedia is just Wikipedia in English; the fact that it is in English does not entail a focus on the English speaking world. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that he lists everything, having read a number of reviews of the book.  As such, just because he lists it doesn't make it notable.  Since you clearly own the book, why don't you summarize why those particular works are important?  Also, you might try actually responding to my arguments.
Also, see the first review [here|http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Northern-Mythology-Rudolf-Simek/dp/0859915131], which clearly highlights its linguistic bias.
Edit: also, a dictionary is a linguistic work by definition.  That's what a dictionary is.
--69.209.68.87 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Simek's dictionary is no more "linguistic" than Orchard or Lindow's dictionaries on the same subject matter, so I have no idea what you're trying to get at with this "primarily linguistic" business. Many of Simek's entries include a section covering art and literature on the subject in modern times. These sections rarely contain commentary (commentary is nice but not needed). Obviously, the section citing Simek here does exactly that. If we had the sources, this section ideally would, in fact, be even far more extensive, covering the very first mention of Fenrir in modern times up until the present day. Unfortunately the sources aren't out there for this yet (that I know of), but it's certainly an area of study (the modern influence of these figures). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ie, he lists everything he could find.  That virtually guarantees that his listing of it does not make it notable.
I've also totally failed to find any independent confirmation of the notability of any of these works, or even the artists/writers thereof in most cases, and I've looked.  And the one with an extensive wikipedia page doesn't mention the work in question.  If its not notable in the context of *him*, why is it notable in the context of Fenrir.
--69.209.68.87 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, this section covers depictions of the figure in modern times. These entries are chronological; it's a history, not a pop culture list. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
What is your attachment to the modern influences section as is?  There is no information demonstrating their notability.  I have a hard time even finding webpages on english except this one for some of them.  This is exceedingly obscure information, hardly deserving of inclusion on a wikipedia article.  And pop-culture from 100 years ago is still pop culture.  Even worse, it seems to be obscure for its day as well, making it not even *popular* then. --69.209.68.87 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whereas the mere listing of material in a modern influences section makes an implicit claim of notability with regards to the topic of the page,
And whereas such a claim is OR without citation,
And whereas no such citations are present on this page (or seem to ever be forthcoming, having done some looking),
And whereas 'modern influences' sections that are merely a list of material invite the addition of cruft, and are thus undesirable,
And whereas the Thor page admirably handles the situation in a way that doesn't suffer from these defects,
I propose the current section be deleted in its entirety.
I further propose that something resembling the following replace it:
Modern works of art and literature depicting the Fenrir myth appear as early as the 19th century<ref name=SIMEK81>Simek (2007:81).</ref>, but more frequently merely the name appears with little or no connection to the mythological figure.<ref>Claremont,C. 1985. Uncanny X-Men #200.</ref><ref>Rowlings, JK. 2005.</ref>
Better or more references could of course be added to either statement, and it removes lengthy useless text from the bottom of the article.  If notable renderings of the myth were to be found and documented, they could certainly warrant treatment in the article proper, but otherwise keep them as nothing more than footnotes.  (Alternately, an even harsher treatment mirroring the Thor page could certainly be warranted, although Fenrir or derivatives is used much less frequently.)
Please consider the two proposals separately (ie, removal of current section and specific replacement proposal). (the example citations for the second statement were chosen based on what I could reference quickly - if people thinks that line can go without citation I'd be happy eliminating them). --69.209.68.87 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Some legwork so you don't have to:

Dorothy Hardy is incredibly difficult to track down anything about online.  Simply searching for her name comes up with nothing of interest (random 'find paintings, etc... by Dorothy Hardy' type links).  I eventually managed to turn up a few book illustrations and horse paintings.  She appears to have been a book illustrator, which is all I can say about her, and someone happens to own and have uploaded to the web a bunch of images from a early-20th century book on Norse Mythology that she did illustrations for.  Full name may be M. Dorothy Hardy (different person?), and gender may not be 'she' for all i can discover.  Absolutely no critical reviews available online, much less anything discussing her art.  Basically, she's not a notable artist by any stretch of the imagination (compare to artists who are well known, who generate web pages on their person and so forth, museum pages where their art is displayed, and so on).  Just a random illustrator working for a book company who happened to publish a Norse Mythology book.  Needless to say, there is no 'impact' of her (his?) work.
Emil Doepler has a wikipedia page that is the most horrid of stubs, and one of the two sources (the only one referring to him at all) is the same Simek reference used here.  Also apparently a book illustrator as well as theatre costume designer, and son of someone who was cited in a scholarly work on art (other citation on his wiki page), but that doesn't make *him* notable.  His father had the same name, so google hits are often ambiguous unless they contain birth and death dates, but his father seems far more notable (and his wiki page actually has content).  While his father is apparently of interest to the Art Nouveau scholars, his own work has no scholarly discussion or critical review that I can find (not surprising given his professions).  Ie, again a totally non-notable artist with no known notable works of art.
AV Gunnerud has no english wikipedia page but does have a norwegian wikipedia page.  That page (yay auto-translate) does not mention the particular statue at all.  He is only recently died (2007), meaning the significance of his work, if any, is likely unassessed critically.  He also seems to have mostly been notable locally in Norway, and there are no pages in English on him aside from his mention here (all links i saw appear to be norwegian).  Ie, the impact of his work in the english-speaking world is apparently zero.  If his artwork was notable, presumably there would be some non-norwegian attention paid.
Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger has a wikipedia page, and is actually notable, but the referenced work is never referenced on his own page.  If it is not notable in the context of the author, how can it be expected to be notable in the context of the subject matter?  This wikipedia page is the first google hit for his name and the work's title, followed by a hit for the full text of the work itself.  I can't seem to find any scholarly interest in this particular piece, in fact, there are 8 total google hits to that search, most not in English.
KH Strobl is virtually impossible to find true hits without also searching by the book title given here - at which point the first hit is again this page and the rest are not in english (all 7 of them).  No critical reviews that I can see, and certainly not notable as an author or the first 20 hits on searches for his name wouldn't all be chemists and engineers.
Reich and Larson - all searches for title + authors are either not english or seem to be citations of the same Simek source used here (the wikipedia page is first, and many of the other english pages are direct copies of the wikipedia page).  There are 9 total hits.  For a book written in *1974* that's pretty sad that that's all the interest its generated.  I know of bad pulp '60s sci-fi novels with more impact.  Removing author's first initials increases the number of hits substantially, but as none of the pages are in english I can't verify they're referring to the same work, but most of them just seem to be book listings (eg, see http://merihobu.utlib.ee/record=b1701533~S1).  Basically, they are no Tolkien, Grisham, etc..., or even a semi-notable author.  They wrote a book that didn't even generate enough interest to get translated, in an era when the Silmarillion broke all previous records (Bible aside) by selling 1 million copies - meaning the likely circulation is somewhere in the low thousands.  Not at all significant.
--69.209.68.87 (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardy is definitely a 'she', she's often referred to as "Miss M. Dorothy Hardy". There are no online sources that say much about her (though, as you noted, lots and lots of hits for artworks by her and books she illustrated) but if we hit the library we can probably track down some sources. Lack of clear online sources does not, of course, show that something isn't notable. If you're actually willing to do some legwork on this then I'd appreciate if you tried to get your hands on a copy of American book and magazine illustrators to 1920 which appears to have an entry for Hardy. The libraries over in my country don't have that book. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have located a copy of that book, but I'll have to get downtown sometime to actually check it.  Reference, so they almost certainly won't send it to the local public library branch.  (Lucky i live near a big city or i probably would have been out of luck).--69.209.79.85 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Great! Looking forward to it. It might not be the right Hardy but I hope so. Haukur (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Section included the following text undisplayed:

"This is a section about significant modern interpretations of the Fenrir character or myth. Books or videogames which happen to name a wolf-like character 'Fenrir' or 'Fenris' by way of a minor mythological namecheck are of little encyclopaedic interest, and should not be added here."
None of the items in the section were _significant_ interpretations of Fenrir as a character or myth.  Two were book illustrations, at least one of which already appears as an image on the page, which are only cited in a work that lists every single depiction of fenrir ever published in a germanic language, as far as i can tell, and apparently without explanation in the cited work.  (One wonders why those particular illustrations were listed, but not other illustrations obviously contemporary with them which also appear as images on this page - no, this is not an invitation to also list those, but it does show clear bias in the editor who added them and insisted on keeping them.)  A lengthy discussion above elucidated no information about why they were notable despite bloodfox apparently having access to the work.  Similarly two works of literature in non-english, from teh same source, with no explanation of notability ever offered.
There was also reference to Harry Potter, which merely borrows the name.  Obviously not a significant interpretation of the character.  May as well cite the Uncanny X-Men's use of the name in UXM 200 at that point.  CS Lewis was also attributed as using the name - he did not, the name was used by his american publisher in replacement of the name he chose, and only in (much) older editions of the book.  (American versions have since reverted to the original name).
If any source can be provided which demonstrates the significance of any of these works in the context of fenrir then the section could be re-added. (Not just a source that lists these works and says they mention fenrir.  It must offer an explanation of how the work is a significant retelling of the fenrir myth or treatment of the character.)  Any re-insertion of this material without such documentation constitutes a violation of WP:Notability because its asserting unwarranted notability for the works in the context of Fenrir.  Such notability needs to be proven with citation.  (The problem with the Simek citation is it never established the notability of the works - ie, not any citation will cut it).
--68.255.105.48 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The material from Simek illustrates the modern influence that the work has had in the arts, and that is why it is there. Similarly, the Harry Potter and Lewis material can easily be added to the article under the pretense of notability if it is cited, for example, in a work such as Simek's. You seem to be misunderstanding "notability" guidelines; it is perfectly acceptable to have a section covering how the figure is treated in modern society. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain to me in a few sentences how the works cited by Simek are notable?  The fact that he cites them is insufficient, the reasons that he cites them are important.  Just being cited by Simek does not make the works notable for this article.
Neither the Harry Potter nor the "Lewis" are notable at all.  Harry Potter just happens to use the name with a wolf character and no real tie to the Fenrir story.  Lewis never even uses the name - his American publisher used it for books published in the US *25 years ago or more*.  Representing it as Lewis's work is a gross tragedy, and that's before even thinking about whether the character in question had any connection with the actual fenrir myth other than being wolf-like.
--68.255.105.48 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of this discussion page seems to be about what to do about people constantly adding references to fictional derivations, such as in Lewis or Rowling. The thing is, many editors to Wikipedia are new or inexperienced and are well meaning when they make such additions. I did it myself before I knew to read Discussion pages about such things first.
However, had I seen a hatnote at the top of the page explaining that this article was solely about the mythological character and not derivations, I would not have made the edit.
Thus, I suggest we add the following hatnote to the top of the page:

...which is a little more clear than:

I'll wait a few days and then make this change myself if no one objects.
Lhynard (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no objections? I'll make the change. Lhynard (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For what reason is this wolf called "monster of the river Ván"? Where is this river, and for what reason? It seems more obvious that "van" comes from "vanir" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanir - so the wolf would be the monster of the vanir, but YES this is "original research" until someone can find a book that agrees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.40.95 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 

Ván is mentioned as a river in Grímnismál along with a great many others, which flow "close to men and from there to hell". Ván means hope and has nothing to do with Vanir. The accent is significant. Werner Vogel (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing here discussing the story of Fenrir swallowing the Sun.  I thought this was part of Ragnarkok. I see mention of his offspring doing it. Seems to me that this point deserves discussion and expanation - in the Ragnarok wikipedia article, it is foretold (apparently) that he will swallow it. In my very uninformed opinion, Fenrir is BEST known (popularly) for this one act. (I wasn't aware of his Odinvore fame.) Also, I think more should be said about the name Fenris.72.172.1.20 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The myth of him swallowing the sun can be a poetic explenation that it is his doing for producing the offspring, but the myth also indicates a variant were it is Fenrir himself who does so, as his upper jaw goes up and covers the sky when he gets free, indicating him swallowing the sun, which could be the reason he spews flames during ragnarök. Blockhaj (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Loding has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 10 § Loding until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)