Talk:Norse rituals

Overlap
This is a good article in terms of sourcing and coverage, though I wonder why you have created a new article, almost replacing the Norse paganism article. These two articles now overlap, and "Norse paganism" is really the most appropriate one. Would you mind merging the two articles into "Norse paganism", or do you have any arguments for this particular subject needing a separate page? –Holt T•C 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Holt. These do seem like rival articles.--Wetman (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is a translation from the Danish Wikipedia (not fully translated yet). I think the Danish article contains a lot of in-depth information that would be too specific for the overall article on Norse paganism. If the two articles were merged the worship part could easily be too large in comparison with the other parts.-- ★ RegicollisT·C 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When translating from other Wikipedias, it is important to consider the circumstances. The Danish Wikipedia "Ritualer i nordisk religion" article is the corresponding article to "Norse paganism", because it focuses on the practices, just like the "Norse paganism" article does, hence paganism "pagan beliefs or practices" (Merriam Webster def. ) and not "mythology". Some sections being larger than others has nothing to say, that only makes room for improval of the smaller sections. –Holt  T•C 20:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, this article should be at Norse paganism. Our current article there is basically completely unsourced, I advocate copying and pasting this article over that one and making this page into a redirect. Further, this article, while sourced heavily, is very speculative: What needs to be said is who is theorizing what and based off of what evidence. In many cases, this is going to result in a tag for the subject, but that's because Norse paganism is a pretty general field. Right now the article presents theory throughout as fact. bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this wasn't fixed. It seems everybody above agreed that the article cannot remain as it stands. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is more complete than the other one, and it focuses upon rituals, not upon beliefs. The links are appropriate. I think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.176.27 (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, on the grounds that both articles have independent scope and have developed (including better referencing in the target) over the last 4 years since the proposal was made. Agree with 80.67.176.27. Klbrain (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources are difficult to locate
Source 73 Ellmer p 191 is not enough information to verify information from. 192.180.222.78 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)