Talk:Níðhöggr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gryffindor (talk | contribs) at 11:05, 29 November 2005 (→‎Wrong vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Myth2 This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

removal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It does not appear relevant to me. It is a description of a dragon from Gesta Danorum [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You can't claim these is no common English variant when the article itself admits there is. Furhtermore, the Use English policy means we have to use the most common English variant even if the most common one isn't as common as you think it should be... Changing the name of this article is an ridiculous contradiction of your claims that your article naming goals would only affect those articles without common English names. You claim "I think is consistent with our policies and guidelines" -- this is patently false, as the only guidelines about naming is to use English -- you tried and failed to make your own naming conventions into a guideline, this is just further indication of your bad faith activity here. DreamGuy 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please read the article and you will find the multiple Anglicized forms. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [2] without any complaints and that sets a good precedent in my opinion. Stefán Ingi 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Article should have English title

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Those are all Latin letters. See cyrillic for a few real non-Latin letters. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The most common of the several Anglicized forms is already prominent and bolded on the first line of the article. There are redirects from just about every Anglicized form. There is a catalog of them in the article already. Using the accurate Old Norse spelling for the title is more professional and does not harm accessibility. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you admit there's a most common one, then by Wikipedia:Use English policy, it HAS to be moved. Old Norse is NOT English, and your opinion that it looks nicer doesn't matter, we have rules here that have to be followed. DreamGuy 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as so many times before. Lots of articles on wikipedia have diacritics in their names, this has all been discussed before and Níðhöggr is the name following the same lines as have already been established. Stefán Ingi 00:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those "same liines as have already been established" HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. A small group of people dedicated to a certain topic working against policy does not overrule policy. DreamGuy 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This article needs to be moved back to Nidhogg... Other editor is making up his own rules and violating Wikipedia:Use English policy.

This is such a horrible waste of time and energy. Please, do we have to go through this yet again? You did not succeed in the Talk:Höðr requested move and you did not succeed in the Talk:Lóðurr requested move. Once again you file an identical request to get rid of diacritics and nominative endings. - Haukur Þorgeirsson
No, you are the one who has not succeeded here. Wikipedia:Use English is still in effect. If you want to change that, go try to vote on it. Please don't make deceptive comments. Yhe fact that you are from Iceland, have an Icelandic name, and want to make articles Icelandic is all hunky dory for your cultural heritage, but it's not how this encyclopedia is run. DreamGuy 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to accept that my interpretation of the Use English guideline is not the same as yours. In particular I give a lot of weight to this part of it:
"If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration[.]"
The examples of commonly used English names cited in the guideline are Beijing, Vienna, Venice and Christopher Columbus. All of those names are commonly used and known to the average English speaker. The name "Nidhogg" is not a commonly used English name in that sense. A Google search for 'Nidhogg mythology' yields less than a thousand pages. A search for 'Thor mythology' yields more than half a million English language pages. Thor is a commonly used English name so we use that rather than the original form "Þórr". Nidhogg is not a commonly used English name so it is natural to use the accurate Old Norse spelling. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong vote

We already have a policy:

In English works intended for the general public it is common to use some system for anglicizing the names. Frequent features of such systems include the replacement of 'ð' with 'th', 'dh' or 'd' and of 'þ' with 'th'.

So the question should be reframed:

  1. Should we adhere to policy, or
  2. Make an exception and move Nidhogg to Níðhöggr?

So as an administrator I am moving the article back to the policy-prescribed title. We can then discuss and/or vote on whether we should make an exception. Uncle Ed 20:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest this use of administrator powers. Moving the page in the middle of a debate makes it harder to understand the debate. There is no consensus for a policy to disallow eth and thorn in article titles and hundreds of articles have such titles already. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I have to say I am a bit concerned about an administrator moving a topic in the middle of a voting procedure. Because now the voting would have to be completely restarted again, won't it? IMO even an administrator has to wait for the outcome of a vote. Or start a countervote basically. But the voting procedure above now is completely useless, because the article's name is not what is being voted upon anymore. Is moving articles during a vote allowed? Gryffindor
No. "I've reframed this from Move back to English to Keep at English", so how would anyone's "vote" have to be re-cast? And why should this issue be resolved by a vote anyway?
If it's to be decided by a vote, what are the voting rules? Uncle Ed 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, why the emphasis on "as an administrator"? From my understanding, admins have no status above ordinary users, just some extra responsibilities that they are permitted to carry out. Shouldn't it be something like "as a concerned Wikipedian"? Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is really really bad when an admin abuses his administrative powers to move a page during a vote.--Wiglaf 07:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed I can understand your motives, however as an administrator i'm sure you know better not to unilaterally move a page (even though a normal user might have done so) that is under a vote. what I meant is that if you move the article during the voting procedure, users might get confused when looking at the {move} table of articles to be voted upon. Therefore by moving the article without waiting first you have probably influenced the count in a manner that is impossible to fathom. And besides, how is the result going to look? if a majority votes for oppose it basically means keep the nordic version, so now we have a reverse situation, would it switch back? is this allowed by the rules or would a new procedure have to be called for? in my opinion a waste of time and an exercise in patience that really should not have been. My understanding of administratorship is to stay neutral, it would have been better that you waited for the outcome regardless of your status. in any case it doesn't matter anymore, i see it has been moved back. Gryffindor 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Níðhöggr&oldid=29580709"