Talk:Jörmungandr

message: I said in an edit summary that the trivia section was getting out of hand and removed the random collection of references found there. They are back, with the edit summary Says you; most pop culture pages list and all their examples until they warrant their own article. Please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A bullet point list of random references can never warrant a wikipedia article. Also, the section as it now stands does not comply with basic style guidelines which mandate that we write our articles as coherent text. Stefán 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that so? What would you say to this page, that came as a product of this very same argument over another figure from myth? Furthermore, of course this isn't indiscriminate; just because you were never aware of all these references doesn't mean they're suddenly "random". By half-assing the section with some sentance that says, 'there's stuff in animé and comics, 'n junk', you're cheating others out of knowing just how the name is used, and purhaps, why. Virtually all the pop culture sections in wiki do this so nobody is left in the dark - something an encyclopedia should never do. -Biokinetica 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sure we can agree on something. We have the article Norse mythology in popular culture, how about we keep all the general references there and only have those here that single out Jörmungandr? Stefán 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've solved your problem with the creation of Jörmungandr in popular culture. Most subjects relating to Norse lore have led to the creation of such a page. :bloodofox: 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason these pages are created in the first place is because these references are constantly added to such articles. They constantly multiply. This seems to be the best way to deal with such references. :bloodofox: 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: What is the etymology of the name Jörmundgandr, really? I've never heard that name used outside of english. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , "[i]t means great staff. The Norse word Miðgarðsormr is used in the Prose Edda but Jörmungandr is used in the older Poetic Edda." (from archived talk page). –Holt  T•C 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I have not been able to find a reference for this comment: "When he [the serpent] lets go the world will end". I know Ragnarok coincides with the serpent spewing poison and the wolf doing its thing etc. But this article implies that the end of the world is brought on by the serpent letting go if its tale. Is that so, and can we have a reference for this? Thanks. Tanyushka (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotterdamerung, or Ragnarok, is stated elswhere as beginning because of Loki's escape from bondage and subsequent rallying of Hel's forces and both groups of giants. Jormungander participates by causing floods, possibly from rapid surfacing (this would be just after letting go of his tail). However, there is a story of Jormungander surfacing before gotterdamerung - Thor goes fishing for him. 69.228.147.231 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that Jormungand's swallowing of his own tail occurred AFTER the fishing incident where he ate the ox head? Perhaps he was not fully grown at that point? Ranze (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the world?

message: Jörmungandr appeared in an episode of DuckTales (2017). Should I add this to the article? CoolSwitch4212 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the Ducktales reboot version of Jörmungandr as a snake-headed wrestler is affecting public perception of Jörmungandr or has a crucial role in the series or season's overarching plot, I doubt that a "monster of the week" situation is noteworthy enough to bother mentioning.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jörmungandr in DuckTales (2017) 

message: , u recently removed my edits to the box (by reverting several unrelated changes instead of just deleting the code...) with the comment: "Open for discussion on this but this box appears to not be helpful to me as the information is oversimplified and overgeneralising. Do we necessarily have reason to believe for example that he always had an affiliation to "Loki's host" beyond Ragnarok? Is he best described as a member of the "kin Jotnar"? Replaced image was not a problem either just as it wasn't in line with the editors tastes." Boxes are always oversimplified and overgeneralising on Wikipedia and its always a battle to fit the most relevant information. As for the affiliation part, i implemented it to clarify his affiliation during Ragnarök. As for his kin, he is ethnically a jötunn by his parents, as both are jötnar. It is unclear if the serpent body is a cursed hamr but technically there is no written text which says jötnar has to be humanoid. Blockhaj (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BlockHaj. FIrstly, regarding the unrelated changes, I will admit I should have given them a distinct undo reason - in my opinion they either involve no reference, an unreliable reference or have an unclear benefit to the article. My main argument centres on the on the point you have made: "Boxes are always oversimplified and overgeneralising". Why are we including it if it is those things? Is this really beneficial to the page or does it undermine the nuance in the rest of the content? I think that while maybe some boxes like parenthood might of use, the rest are not overly suited to a figure like this. I think regarding the other, smaller, points that we should note that the thulur don't list Jormungandr as a jotunn and that I cannot think of a time he is explicitly described as one. Many gods are descendents of jotnar but are not necessarily themselves. Some others are also a little awkwardly phrased such as gender - it feels too complicated a point is being discussed in only a few words which ends up not being clear, as the box is designed to be. What do you think about this? I'm keen to hear opinions from others too :) Ingwina (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the problematic box, from my point of view it is simply there for the lack of a better solution. It does give basic information (although not enough of it) for readers who have yet to read through the article. It can also point out details which would be part of longer segments in the article section, for example that one of his "weapons" (more like means of attack/defence) is eitr. As for him beign a jötunn, i cannot deny that no historic script that i'm aware of says so outright, however both of his parents are jötnar, which logically makes him a jötunn. I have seen him being described as a jötunn or of jötunn descent from modern sources, so its probably simply a modern detail. From a more speculative side however (something which i hope to implement into the article in the future), there is a verbal idea that Jörmungandr should be capable of shapeshifting (hamr-shifting in old norse) like his father Loke (which is one of his father's main traits) and that the serpent body is a hamr shape which for some reason has been permantently fixed to him. The same thing would go for Fenrir and Hel, etc (Hel basically being two Hamrs at the same time, young girl/old lady). If this is the case then Jörmundgandr would definitely be a jötunn, as per his parents. Anyway, to the point, my initial train of thought with his kin is that both of his parents are jötnar, thus he would logically be such. But since the surviving sagas dont mention him as such per se, there is definitely an argument that it shouldn't defacto be in the box. I have much more to bring to the topic but these comments take time to write :) --Blockhaj (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These user boxes may be useful for types of cheese or car models, but they fall flat when applied to figures from folklore, including myth. Please refrain from attempting to insert a square into a circle here—there's no need for a redundant and misleading infobox here. It just clutters the lead and confuses readers. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally disagree (compare with Jesus for example), but since there are more important improvements to be made to the article i won't put energi into this debate. The box lacked many figures which would be of interest either way.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The box