Talk:Níðhöggr/Archive 1

message: I moved the following from the article.
:A Nithhoggr was slain by Danish king Frotho in Gesta Danorum. It is described as a serpent: "...wreathed in coils, doubled in many a fold, and with a tail drawn out in winding whorls, shaking his manifold spirals and shedding venom ... his slaver burns up what it bespatters yet ...remember to keep the dauntless temper of thy mind; nor let the point of the jagged tooth trouble thee, nor the starkness of the beast, nor the venom there is a place under his lowest belly whither thou mayst plunge the blade'"
- Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why remove it from the article? Is it not relevant? Also, I don't think this page should be moved from the common English version of the name. Feel free to list on WP:RM if you disagree, of course. Jonathunder 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not appear relevant to me. It is a description of a dragon from Gesta Danorum  but that dragon is never identified as Níðhöggr there. I have moved the page back as per Use English. I don't think it can be said to have a common English name so the name in the original language should be used. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thank you for your additions; they are valuable. I don't agree WP:UE mandates moving this article from where it has long been and where almost all links point. Nidhogg is an English form and seems common enough as I see it. Please list on WP:RM if you'd like to move, as it may be controversial. Kind regards. Jonathunder 18:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote basically all of this article and added the picture in it. I would have moved it to Níðhöggr some time ago except that I did not want to prejudice the naming convention discussion. Now that it is over I decided to move it to include its diacritics and nominative case marker, a move which I think is consistent with our policies and guidelines. I would have moved it back myself except that you made an edit to the redirect solely so that I would not be able to. I will take your concerns about the links into account. I'm still working on the article, do you have any suggestions on how to improve it? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I am acting in good faith in accordance with my interpretation of our policies and guidelines. While Nidhogg is probably the most common Anglicization in popular works and in Google hits and I think it is useful to give it at the outset of the article you will see that none of the English texts which the article quotes actually uses that form. In cases where there are multiple Anglicized forms - none of which can be said to be commonly used in English the way "Thor" and "Odin" are - I think it is best to use the original form as the Use English guideline suggests. Many people agree with me on that as you've seen in the vote on the recent naming convention proposal and in such requested moves as Talk:Höðr and Talk:Lóðurr. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're for Iceland, and I know you want to use archaic Iceland as the article title, but that's a violation of the policies here. What, pray tell, are the "multiple Anglicized forms" you speak of... It is commonly used in English, and needs to be moved back. Your desire to reword the English language Encyclopedia to the language of your origin is all very interesting, but your attempts to ignore policies to get your own way is just absurd. DreamGuy 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article and you will find the multiple Anglicized forms. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Danicized and Germanicized and Frenchified or whatever.  Just because someone decided to throw out a red herring with all the possible permutations of little squigglies doesn't mean we have any more difficulty choosing an acceptable English name here, no more than we do for Will Sheakspear who even signed his own name about that many different ways.  Gene Nygaard 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All the forms listed occur in English texts. The Danish form Nidhug, in particular, is used in Anderson's English translation of the Prose Edda. The list of forms and array of redirects is not a red herring but a device to help people find the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it is unfair on Haukur to suggest that his nationality is the only reason he prefers the Icelandic versions.  It is increasingly common in academic and scholarly work to use names as close to the original as possible, rather than a transliteration which often completely mangles the name. —Matthew Brown (T:C)
I won't question anyone's motives as that is quite impolite and violates policy. I must point out that I think it is also impolite and a violation of policy for the move to be pushed through after objections were raised and a listing made on requested moves. The article has been at Nidhogg for a long time, that is where the links are, that is where it was on my watchlist. There was absolutely no notice given here on talk before this move was done. When I reverted that and politely said "please list on WP:RM" that wasn't done, but it was moved again. So I listed it on requested moves, even though I am not the initator, and I put the article back to its original location while discussion could take place. But it was moved again, even though there was significant objection. I really must protest this. Can't we discuss controversial moves like this before just moving? Please be courteous to your fellow editors. None of us is the only one who cares about these topics, and other editors have ideas are worth hearing. No one person owns this article. Jonathunder 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments. I'd just like to point out that all the links have been fixed, except the one in the List of Forgotten Realms deities, I really don't know what to do with that one, it's some weird text in the external links section, I'd be inclined to just remove it but I have no idea about the subject. Any help would be appreciated. As for the comment on the procedure of the move, I'd like to point out that it was done by the editors who have been most active in improving the articles. Their position to where the articles should be has been well advertised so this should not come as any surprise. Of course I understand that you care about the article and I have to say that from my viewpoint the article has greatly improved with Haukur's additions. Finally, as you must know if you have been watching the article, the creature has been called Níðhöggr in the article for the last two months  without any complaints and that sets a good precedent in my opinion. Stefán Ingi 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As to listing the Old Norse name in the article in addition to the English name, I of course have no objection. As to moving it with no note on talk, that did take me by surprise. As to moving again after it was put back to it original location and after I made a very polite request to discuss and not force the move, I have to admit I am quite put out. As to changing links even after this discussion and before it is decided where this article should land, I'm just not going to comment because I have never made an impolite comment on WP and I will not start now. Jonathunder 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that I have upset you, I'm sorry about that. I honestly thought that the comment you made previously about the links was an encouragement to fix them. Anyway, I will help in moving them back if the consensus will be to move the article back to Nidhogg. Also, I think you missed the point about the edit I linked to before. The name Níðhöggr was not just mentioned in that edit, it is put into the text as the proper name of the creature. But I will go to bed now, good night. Stefán Ingi 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removal

message: I don't think the form "Nidhogg" constitutes a common English form. I think Google results are always hopelessly skewed towards ASCII forms and that we should much rather go by works in print. There have been some popular computer games which happened to use the "Nidhogg" form and I don't think that should influence the decision. It's not the form I'm used to seeing in works on the subject or reference works.
I'll start by enumerating the forms which the references I've been using to write the article use:
*Ursula Dronke's translation of the Poetic Edda: Níðhǫggr
*John Lindow's handbook: Nídhögg
*Brodeur's translation of the Prose Edda: Nídhöggr
*Thorpe's translation of the Poetic Edda: Nidhögg
*Bellows' translation of the Poetic Edda: Nithhogg
And here are some books which you can see the index for on Amazon:
*Gods and Myths of Northern Europe by H.R. Ellis Davidson: Niðhǫggr 
*Myth and Religion of the North by Edward Oswald Gabriel Turville-Petre: Níðhögg
*The Poetic Edda : Second Edition, Revised by Lee M. Hollander: Níthhogg 
*Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia (Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages) by Paul Acker: Niðhǫggr 
Some other works available online:
*Young's translation of the Prose Edda: Níðhogg 
*Anderson's translation of the Prose Edda: Nidhug
There are, of course, works which use the completely stripped "Nidhogg" version. Some of them are even decent. For example, I think Faulkes' translation of the Prose Edda probably uses it but I don't have it at hand and Amazon doesn't have the index so I can't check. But I think the "Nidhogg" form is a very long way indeed from being a "commonly used English form" on par with "Venice", "Christopher Columbus" and "Beijing" as cited in WP:UE.
I think that going by Google in this case is not a good idea but if we try to restrict the Google hits to something that might be relevant here is one attempt:
*nidhoggr mythology -wikipedia: 641 hits 
*nidhogg mythology -wikipedia: 698 hits
If you compare this with a search for e.g. 'Thor mythology -wikipedia' you'll see what I mean by Thor being a commonly used English form in a sense which Nidhogg isn't. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My arguments against using the "Nidhogg" form

message: "Okay, wise guy", you're probably thinking, "but of all those possible forms why do you want to use 'Níðhöggr'"?
My reason is as follows. Unless there is some compelling reason not to I think we should go by the most recent and most respected scholarship. Dronke's translation of the Poetic Edda is as canonical a work as they come and she prefers to assume that the first vowel was long. "Okay", you may say, "but why use 'ö' rather than 'ǫ'? Isn't the second letter the more authentic?" Indeed. In fact I would personally prefer to use 'ǫ' throughout. The reason we haven't done so is that it was technically impossible until recently and even now many people don't have fonts that show it. I thought using 'ö' instead, something frequently done among those who work in the field, was a nice compromise and technically expedient. I thought that using 'ǫ' would invite page move requests with shouts that "I can't see this crazy character!" :) But if there's consensus for using 'ǫ' rather than 'ö' I'll be the first to open up the champagne. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My arguments for the "Níðhöggr" form

message: The move header was changed so that it read a move from Níðhöggr to Níðhöggr -- obviously that makes no sense. The person who did that should be aware that editing the template for discussion is ridiculous and petty. Don't do it again. DreamGuy 19:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't mess with the move header 

message: I've assumed throughout the debate that it was I who changed the spelling from "Nidhogg" to "Níðhöggr". Having finally checked the article history it turns out that this is not the case. The spelling change was made by the IP 85.197.201.1 (which I have never had). She or he made the change back in September and it was never contested.
As for the article in general it was so inaccurate before I started editing it that having no article at all would have been better, in my opinion. An article of similar quality on George W. Bush might go a bit like this:
In American politics, Georg VV. Bush was the ruler (although sometimes a president) that conquered Afghanistan and swore at Saddam Hussein. Georg also harvested oil. The Georg was said to fight with MkKain in the presidential election and would be defeated by Hillary Klinton.
Other Republicans who conquered Afghanistan: Kheney, Povvel, Rike, Bugman.
To complete the picture all those other "Republican" articles would simply be redirects back to Georg VV. Bush.
Later on an irrelevant passage from Gesta Danorum was added (and that editor used the spelling "Nithhoggr"). I won't try to write the Georg equivalent of that, though :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A brief history of the article