Talk:Godwulf

(Medium to) Minor comics character (Marvel, Deathlok)
I'm not sure if that could or should be mentioned. The name likely is used more often than just there. Doesn't really warrant a disambiguation page I guess. He appears in several comics, is even part of storylines. Well, I mentioned it here. Anyone looking for him will find it.--Cyberman TM (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Heroic vs genealogical
There is nothing heroic about Godwulf and nothing to suggest that he represents a conserved Germanic deity tradition. The name derives from the Anglo-Saxon genealogical tradition, and from there it was copied into Langfeðgatal, Snorri's source. He was never an entity independent of these genealogies. Snorri doesn't talk about Godwulf either - again the name is just another name in the pedigree, copied from Langfeðgatal, copied from the Anglian Collection T manuscript. All he is is a name in a pedigree, and like with another page on the same non-entity, Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting this should be merged into the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies page as Dbachmann suggested a few years back. 50.37.106.217 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * While your edits are an improvement on the article, I disagree with the merge proposal. The statement "All he is a name in a pedigree" is misleading. Obviously, we don't know why or exactly how this name appears in the pedigree, and Snorri's treatment is notable enough to keep the article standalone. The article can be expanded with secondary sources discussing the situation. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Snorri's treatment? The grand total of what Snorri says of him is the folowing: ". . . Biar, hans s(onr) Iat, hans s(onr) Gvðolfr, hans s(onr) Finn, hans s(onr) Friallaf" - ". . . Beow, his s(on) Geat, his s(on) Godwulf, his s(on) Finn, his s(on) Frealaf, . . ."  This is a direct copy of the pedigree in Langfeðgatal, itself demonstrably copied from the Anglian collection mss. T (which has accidentally dropped the name Tetwa from between Beow and Geat, as it appears in older versions of the Anglian collection and the ASC). Never, in all of the surviving Germanic tradition, does a single biographical fact about Godwulf appear, other than his placement in this oft-repeated pedigree as son of X and father of Y. That is not independent notability. 50.37.106.217 (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Faulkes's edition is online: . The history of these alterations and changes are themselves notable. For example, the Prologue author's (Snorri or post-Snorri) insertion of Sif and this figures from Old English into the curiously euhemerizing prologue section of the Prose Edda is notable. As some of the secondary sources point out, many of these figures may well originate in Germanic mythology, and the transmission and employment of figures from these lines are notable in themselves. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is the fact that Snorri copied the Langfeðgatal genealogy into the Prose Edda more relevant to one of the names in the pedigree than all the others? It makes no sense to suggest that an arbitrarily-selected name from the descent is the appropriate namespace to discuss the passage of the entire pedigree tradition, particularly when there is already a page that discusses the pedigree tradition itself, and its passage into Langfeðgatal and Snorri.  Were we to pick an arbitrary namespace, why is Godwulf the place for such a discussion and not Frealaf or Tetwa or Hathra or Friðowald, all, like Godwulf, just names in the same pedigree tradition?  Many of the names in this pedigree tradition do indeed represent Germanic mythological figures (Scyld, Sceaf, etc.) but we are not talking about generalities and there isn't the slightest indication this is true of Godwulf, who is nothing but a name between two other names, and as much as it can be intellectually stimulating to wonder where the name came from, that is not the job of Wikipedia and doesn't merit a page unless there is a body of scholarship on the question, which doesn't seem to be the case. 50.37.108.155 (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to go digging and see what you find beyond Grimm. As for the other figures, their own pages can handle whatever secondary discussion occurs around them. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So a single off-the-cuff remark is the grand totality of what you could find? That is not a strong argument for notability. 50.37.108.155 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not exactly making an evening of it. I'm sure there's plenty more out there to dig up. Why not see what you can find. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)