From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Doesn't Wikipedia have a stalking policy?[edit]

Well surprise surprise. Now RSRadford has discovered the Svipdag entry, shortly after I edited it, and brought his games with him. We have already seen this in action at the Viktor Rydberg entry, the Lotte Motz entry, the Nerthus entry, and now here. What is his sudden interest in this entry, I wonder? Other than stalking, I mean. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloodfox' Vandalism[edit]

Bloodfox, instead of worrying about the page number (107 btw), you should worry about the etymology being correct. Also, are you going to add the unnecessary nominative "r" to the Heimdall article too - try to be more consistent in your vandalism? btw, you used the 'r' even where it would make no sense in Old Norse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Svipdagr is per Simek's Old Norse listing (a quick search also reveals that Svipdagr gets more google book hits than Svipdag). You may want to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia considers vandalism: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Page numbers are needed for verification. Eventually, I plan to rewrite this article (and all of the Fjölsvinnsmál articles I haven't already) and you're welcome to help, but you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy so we can work together. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

THis is ridiculous. Let me explain something to you: On old norse AND in english (and swedish too), the name is still "Svipdag". "R" is a case ending - nominative. Just like Bloodfox's has a case ending, genative "'s". Are you going to rename your talk page Talk:Boodfox's When, was it you? moved Svipdag to Svipdagr, the move was called something like "lets make this less confusing and change to old norse - but you haven't. The fact that there are more searches for Svipdagr than Svipdag means nothing, because 1, there are many cases where a less formal or incorrect term is searched for before the correct term, and 2 if you were to compare searches for strings containing the term "to be" and "am", you would certainly find more examples of the latter. get my drift? - case ending. I would believe you completely if you told me that Svipdagr appears in ancient texts more than Svipdag, because Svipdag has done things, and his name has been written in the -nominative case-. But we dont write Thorr or Odinn or Heimdallr as the names of articles, because - case morphology. Here, read this: - ride, rides, ridden, rode.= Svipdag, Svipdagr, Svipdags. Why did you feel the need to switch to (an incorrect) old norse anyway - if someone asks you what is the English language term, are you going to respond "Svipdagr"? Ok- then why are you giving as title in an english-langugae article. There is an active Asatru community with members like myself who worship Svipdag, we dont use the inflected Svipdagr as generic, because that is a grammatical error a third grader might make. Oh, and why did you remove the Rydberg etymology again, since, as I remember it, the person whos statements "I intend to rewrite..." , "You may help me", "you can .... as long as", and other statements intended to show your ownership of the article, had previously "allowed" that the etymology could stay as long as it had a page number, 107. Do do you see where I'm going? Hmmm, move button is disabled? Nice. You know, even in wikipedia rules, cut and paste IS allowed when the move button is disabled. Also, why do you suppose "sudden day" is correct - your author, whos actually only interested in re-writing others' books on beowulf, is, with Beowulf,in any case geographically, chronologically, and religiously removed from the tales of Svipdag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resan123 (talkcontribs) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to take a break from this discussion and familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies first. We have reached consensus regarding the standarization of Old Norse names, and one of these agreements includes keeping the nominative case marker in articles about lesser figures. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) for more information. Even though keeping the -r might not always make sense in Old Norse, that is a minor issue which is accepted in order to maintain accessibility and consistency in the articles. It is common to anglicize foreign words to a certain degree, and not regard the language's grammar as much as common English grammar. Cut-and-pasting is not the right way to move pages on Wikipedia. See WP:CUTPASTE. Controversial changes should always be discussed in a proper manner on the talk page before editing. –HoltTC 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is defining who is a "lesser figure"? Svipdag ranks as a deity, not a minor figure. and why should English be the only european language wherein wikipedia 'consensus' dictates that the well-established english version of a deity's name is no longer acceptable? It is not a minor issue, and consistency is served by removing the terminal "r" from both Svipdagr and Freyr as well. Or are you planning to add it to Thor and Heimdall and add an additional "n" to Odin? There is no consistency right now. Wikipedia should FIND consistency. And what is more, thank you for mentioning the page on naming conventions - it says I'm correct where it says anything. Did you read it? The only time it mentions the nominative ending, it states "may sometimes be dropped after consonants" and the page at least objects to Bloodfox's eliminantion of the standard English form everywhere in the article. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43 December 16, 2008

It's not about nominative vs. accusative, it's about Anglicized forms or not. The accusative of Sága is Ságu but you wouldn't use that as an article title. The accusative of Hildr is Hildi but you wouldn't use that as an article title. The nominative is the form you search for when you look up nouns in dictionaries.[1] Haukur (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If its about Anglicized forms or not, the english form is "Svipdag", it has been for centuries. It seems awfully highhanded of you and bloodfox to try to nullify that fact. You are icelandic, so yeah, ive seen the icelandic articles all beginning with nominative. But what does that prove? But then again, this is the english language version of wikipedia. You should familiarize yourself with that concept or restrict yourself to editing icelandic articles. That's my suggestion, meant honestly. Skadinnaujo informs us that Svipdag is a 'lesser figure' - where this tidbit is coming from i have no idea. Adding the 'r' is basically an attempt to erase the english-language tradition of Svipdag, to make him inaccessible to the anglophone population 'who this article has been written for'. One person in a moment of utter hubris decided to negate the english name of a god in an english-language article, and suddenly, eliminating the name Svipdag in favor of a foreign term becomes the cause du jour among, well, people born in iceland. unbelievable, truly. Why dont you go ahead and rename the article on Jesu s Christ as "Khristos" or something older. The amount of pointless tampering here makes obvious the fact that its all about your egos, and not about common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a debate about the presence or absence of one letter in the name of an obscure legendary figure and your opening gambit is a screed of accusations and attacks against those writing the article. If you want us to discuss the issue on the merits with you then you'd be much better served with another approach. Haukur (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)