Talk:Wōden

References to Father Christmas etc.

Use only references to literature. Internet sources can not be trusted. There is no proof that Wodan is in any way corralated to Father Christmas, father winter or Santa Claus. There are specualtions on it.

English Woden

Woden reclaimed for the English. Well, separated off so that he can be viewed as a single item rather than buried deep in the Odin article.

GDL 28th January 2005

Merge proposal

I disagree that this page needs to exist. It should be part of Odin. Are we to have a separate page for Wotan too, and separate pages for Zeus and Jupiter? --Saforrest 20:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this page should be merged with Odin. It makes no sense to have a special page about Woden, and it suggests that there should be separate pages for Wotan, Wodan, Oden, Godan, or whatever form the name had in whatever Germanic area. The nationalistic "reclaimed for the English" does not count as a valid argument for having Woden separate from Odin. If I don't see a logical justification, I will soon merge the two articles.--Wiglaf 21:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amusingly, since I wrote the above, there are now separate pages for Zeus and Jupiter. --Saforrest 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the articles about Wōdanaz as well as Wōden is saying basically the same as the larger article about Odin. They use the same images and stuff. Also in the article about Odin it is mentioned about different regional and historical spellings of the god. As well as in the end of the article, under Toponyms, there is a "List of places named after Wōdanaz" and Wōdanaz also has his own article, so what is it doing there. So I see no point in keeping them under 3 different articles. What is different could be mention in sub-articles under Odin, which I would say is the most common international name for the this deity days. Odin had 200 names and if there would be a page long almost identical articles it would be like: Why, Odin? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ärik (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only are our current Odin-related articles very poor in quality, but they're also a tangled, confused mess. This is not at all the first time that this issue has come up, and I've posted about it before; see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Germanic_studies#Major_problem_articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

It's worth pointing out that Woden is more correctly spelled Wōden (Anglice "Woden," à l'anglaise "Wooden"). I think it should at least be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.154.203 (talk • contribs) .

Macrons were not actually used in Old English, so it is not really "more correct" except in the sense that it is more consistent with the current writing of Old English. And ō is not pronounced "oo" (i.e. "ew"), or at least not the way an English speaker would say it. See Old English language. --Saforrest 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Recreation

as material accumulated, this article was recreated; it is now a sub-article of Wodanaz. Please refer to Talk:Odin for discussion of the relation between the articles. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Merseburg Charms

I feel that the "English translation" is slightly misleading. The original has "Sinhtgunt" attempting to heal the horse, but the translation gives the impression that her sister is also attempting to heal it. Then the original has "Friia" attempting to heal the horse, but the translation again gives the impression that her sister is also involved. The translation on the "Merseburg Incantations" page seems nearer to the original in this respect. I have changed the text slightly, to try to be nearer the original.

High German Wodan and Low German Wotan

Either ime very muddled or those two are the wrong way round. Froggo Zijgeb 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirection from Votan?

I wanted to look up Votan in relation to Pacal Votan, but somehow ended up here? I know that Votan is possibly a way to say Woden, but maybe there should be a disambiguation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.132.135 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SeriesXobv.jpg

Image:SeriesXobv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the macron?

However the name was spelt in Old English - and, as has been pointed out above, spelling was not consistent - there is no doubt that in modern English the only common spelling is "Woden", without the macron. ðarkuncoll 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Woden" is a proper name, not a word of the English dictionary. Thus, it is rather pointless to distinguish "Modern English Woden" from "Old English Woden". Just as it would be pointless to distinguish "English Muhammad" from "Arabic Muhammad". "Muhammad" is an Arabic name even if it is used in an English-language context. It's not a question of English or not English, it is a question of loose transcription (Muhammad) vs. close scholarly transcription (Muḥammad). In the same way, "Woden" is a loose transcription, and "Wōden" is a close scholarly transcription of the same Old English name. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of historically-correct Ƿ

I'm proposing that the spelling of this article's name and subject be changed to correspond with the accurate and correct spelling from the time period: Ƿōden, as "W" was not used then. Whether or not the macron is used, I'll leave the rest of you to argue over that. Consider that various article names feature correct spellings in their native language, such as Świętochłowice.

I also feel the need to specifically point out English speakers' blatant fear of non-A-to-Z letters, and that this soul-gripping paranoia needs to be overcome, in order for this subject to be correctly represented. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

we follow the conventions of spelling Old English as laid out at Old English. We are not trying to iconically imitate manuscript writing, we just want to transcribe Old English accurately. It is common to use w for the OE /w/ sound.

This has nothing to do with "soul-gripping paranoia". W is the standard letter used for OE /w/ just like ō is the standard letter used for OE /o:/. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I demand we use Standard English lettering for all topics. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 02:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

what is "Standard English lettering"? Look, there is no ambiguity in using w. All Old English dictionaries I have seen use w as a matter of course. The only instance where it may make sense to use Ƿ is when you are transcribing an actual text, from a specific manuscript. When you are citing an Old English lexeme, you are not citing a specific manuscript, so there is no need to imitate that manuscript's spelling. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reading Tolkien's edition of the Ancrene Wisse atm. Tolkien edited with almost obsessive faithfulness to the manuscript, preserving even linebreaks. But even in this case, he still just uses w to express ƿ. Apparently, there is a single instance of w occurring in the entire manuscript, which has ƿ throughout otherwise. Rather than using ƿ all the time just to be able to use w once, the editor simply points out that there is a single w in the ms., and that w transcribes ƿ everywhere else. If this was good enough for Tolkien, in addition to everyone who has ever published an Old English dictionary, it should definitely be good enough for us. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolute garbage. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to Budha

Moved from User talk:Ivan Shmakov#Linking to Budha in Wōden.

Woden and Budha Feb 13 2014 --- I was the one who added 'Budha' under 'See also' section. You removed it saying "no obvious connection to Budha". I didn't suggest any connection by adding under 'See also' because readers who are curious can explore. First the words do match. Change from 'W' to 'B' is widespread. Second the weekday's match 'Wednesday' and 'Budhawar'. Please explain why deleting this would not amount suppression of knowledge --Krishna Mokashi Kmokashi (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the change I’ve reverted seemed more like a spurious edit, as if intended for some different article, – adding a link to an article not obviously related to this one, and providing no justification for the doing so.

Now that a justification is given (above), my initial doubt does no longer apply. However, I believe that the arguments above should be properly attributed (so not to amount to original research – which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.) Moreover, given that a proper attribution is given, I suggest that the arguments above (along with the link being discussed) be given somewhere in the text of the article (that is: above the See also section.)

Also please note that suppression of knowledge does not seem like a valid argument in Wikipedia discussions.

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 10:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wednesday article doesn't mention this much.

24.215.188.243 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 February 2015

The page Woden is a redirect to Wōden, which is itself a redirect to Odin. Please redirect Woden to Odin to avoid a double redirect. I would do it myself but the page is protected. Jsharpminor (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Jsharpminor (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)