Talk:Nægling

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	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.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Inheritance Cycle?[edit]

The name was later re-used for another sword, owned by the elf Oromis, a character in Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Cycle.

That's a joke, right? I know I'm not exactly a neutral observer on this topic (I hate Paolini and I openly admit it), but does that really have a place in this article? Why should an piece focusing on a weapon in Beowulf mention the fact that the name of the weapon has been reused in one lame contemporary story? That can't possibly be the only time it's been reused, and it just doesn't seem all that special that Paolini recycled it.

/cry

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Paolini mostly likely borrowed the name from Beowulf, it bears mentioning, but it would probably be better to include such information in an "in popular culture" section. 206.116.57.240 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aaaaaaarghhhh!!!!! your jealous of chris paolini cuz he is one heck of a writer better than you, whoever you are. he is a great writer and you are not the first person to hate him. but your abuses will not even reach him and you will never understand this and you wont reach anywhere (i openly admit it and it WILL be true). grow up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.18.129 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, Paolini is an awful writer. His series had promise in the first book, but by the third book all that had drained out of it. Especially the awkward Starship Troopers movie rip off in the third one. Edited the page to remove the silly sentence that had no real usage whatsoever.

ok. i get it. i know some people ARE jealous (including you), but that doesnt mean this article shouldnt have a popular culture section like any other. i am putting that sentence back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.18.121 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Chris Paolini is such a great writer, I have to wonder why he spends so much time on Wikipedia. :)

Anyway, I thought the criteria for inclusion had something to do with whether or not the thing being included was relevant to the topic being discussed. I fail to see how the reuse of a (thousand year old) name by another (modern) writer is relevant to the original work. If this is somehow significant, I'd have thought it should be noted on the page relating to Paolini's sword rather than this.

For the sake of full disclosure, I do hate Paolini and I think he's only a published author because he knew the right people and because children are so ignorant as to be held rapt by a work that's simply a rehash of movies they should have already watched. And yes, I am jealous of the fact that he knows the right people. There. Happy? :) J.M. Archer (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stfu eragon rocks... u'll never understand how great a writer he is... he doesn't spend time on wikipedia, how can u say that? he spends time writing his cool book... eragon is nothing like star wars... its better!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.18.164 (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And dude... if he knows the right people, he's lucky... If you're father owned a publishing company, would you send it to loads of different publishers? I agree, its a bad book. It is a complete copy of Star Wars, but you can't say that he shouldn't take the easy way out. It's like having a cake in front of you, yet throwing it away and going to the baker to get the same cake again. User:Incredisuper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.18.151 (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swords[edit]

A sword over time will get thinner and thinner from polishing and sharpening, and will become weaker in the process. At a certain point the weakness of the sword and the age of the warrior will intersect, and a graceful exit for the warrior will take place. Just a good way to handle the question of lack of immortality! 68.4.84.135 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]