Talk:Egil One-Hand

Picture of Egil
Someone removed the picture without much discussion, I believe they tried to get it deleted, and when that failed they just edited it out of the article, perhaps we could discuss it before we start deleting thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShieldDane (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a discussion here, and someone still is removing it, without a word. Does that count as vandalism? ShieldDane (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The image is poor quality, period. And we don't need images of fictional entities anyway. There's no use showing what a fictional character looked like. A fictional character has no looks at all, unless art history has endowed him with some, through a tradition of notable pictures. Your image is just a childish scribble. This is an encyclopedia, not a childrens's playground. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, by your logic any fictional character who has not been endowed a picture through art history, has no looks at all? I think that's a little silly considering all the fictional characters who have been illustrated. The picture shows the sword-arm, which I feel is fundamental to this character. Do you know about this character? Are you interested in Legendary Sagas? Or are you just here because you have an axe to grind? I don't feel your input is very neutral at all. Perhaps you should stick to sections you know about? And if really dislike my picture that much, by all means draw your own, better professional one of Egil One-Hand and load it up. Like I've said before, I just put it there because it follows the rules about user created images, and it illustrates a point, not because its any sort of note worthy artistic achievement in of itself. ShieldDane (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the editio princeps of this saga, from 1693, is said to have contained a few illustrations. Now, if anybody could get hold of those, that actually would be a legitimate addition to this article. (Refs added to the Saga article a few minutes ag.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Giantess
..."a giantess with a very short skirt"...? The original describes that figure as eina flagðkonu. My Icelandic is close to non-existent, but I don't see anything there about skirts, let alone very short ones? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It says it's so short he can see her vagina. ShieldDane (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. I'd like to see the literal quote here. What part of the following passage would that correspond to please?
 * Hann sá þar á hól einum jötun mikinn ok eina flagðkonu. Þau drógust um einn gullhring, ok varð hún orkuvana fyrir honum, ok fór hann hrakliga með hana, ok mátti þar sjá viðrlita mikil sköp, því at hún var stuttklædd. Hún loddi á hringinum eptir megni.
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really dislike you. I have no idea where in that it says anything, I can't read Icelandic. Anyways in the 11th section of the Saga titled, 'The Dwarf' Egil sees the Giantess struggling and this: She was wearing a short dress, and her genitalia were very plain to be seen. I'm glad you decided to actually read the page I created in order to find any more fault with my work. I decided a 'dress' so short that you can see her crotch, would in this time and era be considered a skirt. I also didn't feel the need to include how much was in view.ShieldDane (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol again. Seems you were right. :-) Stuttklædd is indeed 'wearing short clothes', and viðrlita mikil is glossed as 'plain to see' . I couldn't identify the word used for, humh, well, you know. Naughty, naughty Icelanders. But learn a new word every day.
 * Feeling of dislike is reciprocated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Berserker?
The section about his Life makes no reference what so ever to the fact that he is a Berserker. So how do we know that he is one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.110.7 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)