Talk:Storsjöodjuret

message: Moving the discussion-by-edit-comment to the talk page.
The AFP article calls the thing Storsjoe, or, arguably, Storjoe monster.
Now it may well be true that an expert in the anglicization of Swedish names may be able to figure out that, of course, Storsjoe and  Storsjöodjuret refer to the same thing. However, I don't think it is a good thing that we require that all readers of this article be experts in the anglicization of Swedish names. Trust me, speaking as someone to whom Swedish is Greek ... er ... you know what I mean ..., I can guarantee that to someone who is not an expert it is not obvious that the two are equivalent. It's worth the separate mention in the lead.
Take a look at the example given at Wikipedia:Lead#Bold_title: 
Surely most of those alternate names can be more easily derived from the first than Storsjoe from Storsjöodjuret - yet they are all given, becasue they are, in fact, common names for the thing. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Storsjoe is Storsjö, the lake, not the monster. It is certainly not worth a seperate mention since it is not a commonly used name in English, it has rarely been encountered before this summer. In English Storsie has definately been most prominent along with the Swedish name and the literal translation "The Great Lake Monster" (  ). Storsjö Monster, or Storsjoe Monster if you insist, is not a full translation. I do agree that the common names should be clearly visable, which they already were, the literal translation initially and Storsie and the Latin name in the box. However as I already pointed out, Storsjoe Monster/Storsjö Monster is definately not common, at all. //Heimvennar - divider 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The AFP article has made it around the world, besides all the US papers, here are: France Canada India ... Here is an article from Australia, not the AFP article. Here is "Storsjoe monster", Associated Press 2004. I'm not arguing that it's correct, I'm just arguing that the horse is out of the barn. Incorrect or not, it is a worldwide term. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several days passed without your comment - do you agree, or at least acquiesce, that it's worth mentioning? --GRuban (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are two days your idea of several? ;) No I do not agree, a simple google check on "Storsjoe Monster" confirms how unusual it is in comparison with Storsjöodjuret, "The Great Lake Monster" and Storsie (and why should we use an unusual name like it's "official"?). Now just because you first encountered Storsjöodjuret with what you probably perceived as a nickname (Stors-Joe perhaps?) is actually an attempt to simply translate the Swedish name "Storsjöodjuret" into English and the article uses both the name without the lake translated and with the lake translated; the Storsjoe or Great Lake monster (as you may know, names usually don't start with a "the"). The articles (well it's basically just one article published in several countries) you are referring to also spells the province Jämtland as Jaemtland, which doesn't mean that that name is worth a mention in that article. Common information pages in English about Storsjöodjuret are using either The Great Lake Monster or Storsie, besides the Swedish name, and I do not see why Wikipedia should do any different on the matter. I'm not saying it's not worth a mention, on the contrary, Storsjoe monster is currently  represented under "name" and IMHO it's best to leave it as that. What I am saying is that Storsjoe Monster or Storsjö Monster is simply not worthy so to speak to be mentioned in bold as if it was a common English name (when it clearly isn't). //Heimvennar - divider 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being published all around the globe is what makes it commonly used. Since one of the articles is from 2004, it's hard to claim they're all one. Anyway, we seem to be at an impasse. I'll ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Er... thanks, that's a nice quote of policy, but I'm not sure how that helps resolve our specific dispute. The sources are reliable and widely used, but they don't say "'Storsjoe' is widely used", they just use it. We can't really expect them to, they're not articles about the word, they're articles about the critter. Did you read them? Do you believe they sufficient? Or do we need to look for an article about the word as such? Note that we don't have any articles about the word Storsjöodjuret either, the sources on that are also articles about the critter. --GRuban (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well given that Storsjoe in itself is never used to refer to the monster, since Storsjoe is the name of the lake (though in indefinite form, and actually the name of a lot of lakes) and sites with information about the critter in English all use Storsjöodjuret, Storsie or Great Lake (English translation of Storsjö) Monster the case is pretty much closed. Information pages such as these     are more reliable than news articles. //Heimvennar - divider 14:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd still like Athaenara to clarify what her opinion was; but if she doesn't, I'll assume she agrees with you, and will leave it alone. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storsjoe 

message: I am responding to a request for a third opinion.   If reliable sources are cited which show that "Storsjoe" is widely used, it should be included; otherwise not.  — Athaenara  ✉  21:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... thanks, that's a nice quote of policy, but I'm not sure how that helps resolve our specific dispute. The sources are reliable and widely used, but they don't say "'Storsjoe' is widely used", they just use it. We can't really expect them to, they're not articles about the word, they're articles about the critter. Did you read them? Do you believe they sufficient? Or do we need to look for an article about the word as such? Note that we don't have any articles about the word Storsjöodjuret either, the sources on that are also articles about the critter. --GRuban (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well given that Storsjoe in itself is never used to refer to the monster, since Storsjoe is the name of the lake (though in indefinite form, and actually the name of a lot of lakes) and sites with information about the critter in English all use Storsjöodjuret, Storsie or Great Lake (English translation of Storsjö) Monster the case is pretty much closed. Information pages such as these     are more reliable than news articles. //Heimvennar - divider 14:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd still like Athaenara to clarify what her opinion was; but if she doesn't, I'll assume she agrees with you, and will leave it alone. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion on Storsjoe

message: The article claims:
::"It is popularly referred to as Storsjöodjuret whereas odjur is a Swedish word for "monster", literally "unanimal""
The literal meaning of odjur isn't "unanimal" but "furious animal". The prefix o- isn't a negation in this case. The Old East Norse etymology would be óðdjúr. // Jens Persson (81.235.130.47 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of "odjur"

message: I changed "great lake" into "great-lake" at all encounterings, because of the following reason: "The Great Lake Monster" aims for a great monster, living in a lake, rather than a moster, living in a great lake. The Swedish namne for the moster, Storsjöodjuret, aims for a monster, living in the lake Storsjön, that's why I though "The Great-Lake Monster" would be a more suiting name. Stor sjö means great lake. The compound, Storsjö, really isn't a Swedish word; it is merely the name for the lake. If there is a better way of writing the name, still making it clear that it is the lake that is great – not the monster – you can gladly change it into that. --Ediug (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "great lake" into "great-lake" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Storsjöodjuret. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726234448/http://www.storsjoodjuret.com:80/fridlysningen~18.php to http://www.storsjoodjuret.com/fridlysningen~18.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Storsjöodjuret. 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  tag to http://www.storsjoodjuret.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205011231/http://storsjoodjuret.nu/ to http://www.storsjoodjuret.nu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified