Talk:Elf

Elfs?

Where did the idea that 'elf' can be pluralised as 'elfs' come from? I can't find it in the Oxford English Dictionary, or Dictionary.com.--90.206.198.139 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish the article would try to make clear what myths of the elves come from ordinary people, and what is made up by Snorre. For example I don't think people distinguished between 'light' and 'dark' elves.

The article could also include some etymology on the word elf (I always thought of it as having to do with river, that is, elves = river people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At one point it did have an extensive etymology that corroborated material from the OED (the traditional PIE derivation, meaning "brilliant white," that seems to work with the descriptions of the elves), but the etymology was (for some reason) mostly removed and the second proposed derivation was left, though it uses weasel words ("some") and is less likely (cognate of "labor," which isn't something associated with the elves until you get to much later in the tradition). I'd insert an etymology, but I don't know how to do footnote citations here. Iro (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

References?

What is "Hall 2004"? --FinnWiki (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A significant part of the article was lost at this point and afterwards, because nobody paid attention and people just deleted vandalism instead of reverting/undoing the destructive edits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"The English word elf is from the Old English ælf or elf, in reference to a midget," In reference to a midget? Where is the reference to that ridiculous idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled about that claim too. I believe this is vandalism. It was introduced a year ago. The problem was that it was followed by more vandalism, and ClueBot rolled back to the earlier vandalised revision. I still find it disconcerting that this patent nonsense has stood unquestioned for a year. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien & elf ears

"A hallmark of fantasy elves is also their long and pointed ears (a convention begun with a note of Tolkien's that the ears of elves were "leaf-shaped")." I'm sorry, but this is absurd and there's no evidence for it. Shall we list the many many illustrators of Victorian and Edwardian England, and the rest of Europe, who portrayed elves and fairies as having pointed ears? Look at any drawing by Arthur Rackham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.95.123 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've seen a few images of Father Christmas/Sinterklass etc depicted as elf like, with pointy ears and such, dating from well before Tolkien's fantasy was published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

It's pretty obvious that this page has been hijacked by someone with a Germanic agenda, or someone who has confused etymology with meaning. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist one. The over-focus on Germanic mythology rather than popular, mainstream use of the word is a mistake. More people will know Elf from World of Warcraft, Tolkien and D&D as well as European mythologies. This article should be about Elves and the Elf (germanic mythology) piped off to a different article. Davémon (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, elves are specific to Germanic mythology and do not exist in other "European mythologies". As for the popular cultural references, they all stem from the Germanic concept of elves. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article for the elves that you are talking about, Davemon: Elves in fantasy fiction and games -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Fyrefly. What about [[1]]? Doesn't that kind of thing belong somewhere? I'm just thinking that someone who comes across the word 'Elf' probably isn't coming across a folkloric concept, but rather the popular culture one. Bloodofox is wrong, elves in popular culture largely derive from Tolkien, and Tolkien has a few more sources than just the Germanic. --Davémon (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that elves have a cultural and modern literary history far prior to Tolkien's writings. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic Origin"

Someone utterly ignorant about the subject has redone the Elf page. They think the Norse are Germanic and from Germany. No, they're Scandinavian, and they are more related to us Slavs, than to Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever about that, I have replaced Germanic mythology with Norse mythology, which was in older versions of this article up until July 2006 when it was removed in a (IMHO) clumsy edit by an IP and never replaced. Norse mythology is also a proper Wikipedia article and this edit brings the article into line with the German-language article of the same name. Hohenloh ⁺ 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

While the article is currently very poor and in need of a rewrite (I've tagged it), elves are by every indication beings stemming from Proto-Germanic and thus not an innovation distinct to the Norse. Your placement of Old English and German attestations under "Norse mythology" is outright wrong and has also been removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article itself says: "The earliest preserved description of elves comes from Norse mythology. In Old Norse they are called álfar (nominative singular álfr)." I am also relying on the German-language article (which appears to be in a good state). See also the comments in the "Coatrack" section above, and I also agree with Fyrefly's comments below. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hohenloh, Old Norse is a Germanic language, and elves are attested prior in other Germanic languages. Old Norse records simply provide the most information we have about them. Otherwise, the German article is also pretty poor (even poorer than this one). The "coatrack" section above is plainly ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed

Recently I've tagged this article for a rewrite. My reasoning is that it's plagued with theory presented as fact, and one look at the reference section will dictate the core of the issue; it wasn't written with academia in hand, but rather as a semi-personal essay. However, fyrael (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the 'rewrite' tag in favor of a 'clean up' tag, stating "the article is far, far too developed already for a total rewrite to be a good idea" which I suppose we should read as 'hey, this article has been this way a long time, why bother?', despite the obvious issues. Unfortunate and counter-productive as it is, this sort of thing seems to happen when attempting to solicit others to produce a rewrite, and, as a result, I guess I'll have to leave the issue alone until I am able to sit down and produce a rewrite myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as counter-productive and arrogant as you being so WP:UNCIVIL is, I'll respond anyway. I very obviously didn't mean "this article has been this way a long time, why bother?" I meant exactly what I said: that the article is much too developed for a rewrite to be necessary. The article is well-structured for the most part and has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length. In my opinion, only mild clean up is needed and a complete rewrite would only slow down the progress toward a better article status. Let's see what consensus decides. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fyrael, if this is your idea of "developed", I'd hate to see your term papers—"has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length"? Seriously? As the issues are clearly not glaring to you, I can only assume that you're not familiar with the material this article covers. This article suffers from the same issues as the dwarf and troll articles did before their rewrites; opinion and theory presented as fact from the very first lines, resulting in a severe entanglement throughoiut of theories preferred by the authors. This, combined with poor referencing, results in the need for a total rewrite. For example, while Hall's work is first-rate, his conclusions need to be presented separately from the attestations. "Consensus" is not needed for a rewrite of an article in a poor state, and it's simply a matter of someone making the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how many times I have to link WP:UNCIVIL before you read it and decide to stop being a child with these sad attempts at personal insults. Now, there are certainly sections with little-to-no citations used and need serious attention, but other sections are fairly well-sourced and I still think the overall structure is fine. We would probably be better off labelling individual sections with more specific clean-up tags since they have varying problems. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The structure isn't the problem. It's the content. And each section has the same set of problems, whether it's poor referencing or theory-as-fact. Look, I can see you're taking this personally, but I obviously don't know you, so don't. It is not a problem that you're not familiar enough with this material to have immediately spotted these issues, but your defense of the issues when they're brought up is. I will not accept defense of the state of this article as it stands on the grounds of being "developed", and nor should you if you are at all concerned about where you get your information from. I will prepare a rewrite as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that you don't know me, which is what makes the attempts at personal insult so childish. I'm also plenty familiar with the material and my defense of the content is completely valid, but your arrogance has blinded you to any redeeming qualities of the article. I wish you good luck with the rewrite and I hope that at as much of it as possible is valuable enough for us to include in the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare

The article refers to "his elves are almost as small as insects", yet Titania is obviously large enough to say to Bottom "Sleep thou, and I will wind thee in my arms". Any comments? Peridon (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This conclusion is based on a misguided cherry-picking of passages. It also appears to be a Wikipedian's conclusion, which makes it WP:SYNTH. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this information about Elves should be allowed on this page.

Elves (singular elf) love to tell stories. I'll bet you didn't know that about elves. There's probably a lot of things you didn't know about elves. Another interesting, uh, "elfism", is that there are only three jobs available to an elf. The first is making shoes at night while the old cobbler sleeps. You can bake cookies in a tree, but as you can imagine, it's dangerous having an oven in an oak tree during the dry season. But the third job, some call it, "the Show" or "the Big Dance," it's the profession that every elf aspires to. And that is to build toys in Santa's workshop.

Elves try to stick to the four main food groups: Candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup.

The Code of the Elves: 1. Treat everyday like Christmas. 2. There's room for everyone on the nice list. 3. The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.

Elves generally love to make ginger bread houses, and eat cookie dough, and go ice skating, and even hold hands. They also love singing Christmas carols, and anything with Maple Syrup or sugar in it. They are great friends, and love to make toys. Most elves make over a thousand toys a day, but if they don't reach their quota, it doesn't mean they're cotton-headed ninny muggins, it just means that they might be better at doing other things, like changing the smoke detector batteries or bringing the Elf Choir down a whole octave (in a good way!). Every elf is important and unique, and one day might even help save Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.230.205 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

References not Corresponding to Citations

If this were a stub, then general references might be appropriate. However, as this is a fully-referenced article that is fairly mature, we need to be careful about using general references, especially references to recent books, because doing so is likely to appear promotional in nature. It has been suggested that the general references currently in the article "might" have been used in the base research for the article, but if such a connection is not obvious, then the reference should be part of an in-line citation, or it should be removed. Definitive works on Elves which are not cited should appear in a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section of this article (as previously suggested). Please feel free to make these edits. Otherwise, at least two of the four general references in this article should be removed completely. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If Alaric Hall's print publications – especially his 2004 doctoral thesis – are not highly relevant to this article, then what is? Sure, they are (relatively) recent, they are available on the web, but that speaks in favour of them, rather than against them: they are up-to-date, peer-reviewed, scholarly book sources, ffs. Why should we limit ourselves to outdated publications going as far back as Grimm when we have so much better sources to add? (In addition, after all, new research can and will supplant sources as old as Grimm.) Why should we exclude Hall 2004? Just because of the fear that we might "promote" a modern, yes, even recent scholar specialising in the subject? That's so incredibly silly that it defies belief.

Yes, he has a Wikipedia account, yes, he has edited articles, but he hasn't done that to promote himself – it wasn't him who added his stuff; but even if he had, so what? It's not against the rules, it doesn't add undue importance – it is already important! – and it helps Wikipedia. This knee-jerk reflex against "self-promotion" doesn't exactly help the problem Wikipedia has attracting experts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hall's work is absolutely appropriate for this article, and when the rewrite comes, it should be well emphasized for exactly what it is; a modern scholarly work extensively tackling the subject. If nobody beats me to it, it's only a matter of time before I rewrite this article. As of now, however, reader beware—this article is currently crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

The elf was also popularized by Enid Blyton's many children's stories. Elves, and other such magical creatures namely pixies, brownies, goblins and so forth, are often portrayed as tiny people, with pointy ears and brown skin, that live in tree holes or tree houses. Very often, Enid Blyton's stories involve children meeting and befriending these creatures, visiting them forthe very typically British meal, 'tea'. Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)