Talk:Vanaheimr

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. There is no consensus that the proposed titles are more common in English sources than the current ones.Cúchullain t/ c 15:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Vanaheimr → Vanaheim
 * Álfheimr → Alfheim
 * Svartálfar → Svartalfheim
 * Niðavellir → Nidavellir
 * Jötunheimr → Jotunheim

– A long time ago this article was moved to "Vanaheimr" because this is the form in Old Norse. However I think the title should be "Vanaheim" because that is the name most commonly used in English e.g. the two Google book references used in this article (The Lost Beliefs of Northern Europe and Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway) both use "Vanaheim". For similar reasons the names of some of the other Norse worlds should be moved to their English forms, including Svartalfheim which is not mentioned in those two books but is mentioned in Norse Mythology A to Z. 90.200.179.217 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. We should go with the more prevalent form in English-language sources. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Academic sources far outweigh popular culture sources mentioning the location. As with many Old Norse names, this is the "more prevalent form" in English language texts. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I know next to nothing about this subject, yet 2 minutes with Google Scholar was enough to show that the IP's nomination is problematic. The existing article titles are already at the standard forms in academic texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. WP:UCN, WP:UE ; 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 70.24.251.x What have examples such as "Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)", and e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence."'' got to do with Svartálfar? If anything WP:UCN and WP:UE support the existing names.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. This is not "per norm". Academic texts, which far outnumber popular culture works, stick to the Old Norse, as should we. There are serious issues with modern attempts at anglicizing these names; see Naming conventions (Norse mythology). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it doesn't say "no'r'm", it says "nom". 70.24.251.208 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a response to the nominator, who claims that this is most common. It is not the "norm". As the primary author of this article and many other Norse mythology articles on Wikipedia, I can assure you that scholarship makes it clear that "Vanaheim" is not the term "most commonly used in English"; scholarship dwarfs the small amount of general audience works where the anglicization is employed. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose all WP:MODERNPLACENAME states Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same [...] Academic texts (using Old Norse) are generally more reliable than other sources and so should be given more weight. Anglicising terms and otherwise dumbing down terminology can perpetuate ignorance and should be generally avoided in any encyclopedia. Some journalists and writers take Wikipedia without a pinch of salt and will take our lead on naming. We therefore need to use the correct name, with anglicised versions simply included in the lead as alternatives. -- Trevj (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I think WP:MODERNPLACENAME is for places that existed in the past and still exist today, thus it does not apply to mythical places. The best guideline for this is WP:NCNM which covers Norse mythology and says that "when one particular Anglicized form for a name is overwhelmingly most common and well known to the average English speaking person, it is used for the article title (such as Odin and Thor)". I don't feel that an Anglicized name is necessarily some sort of dumbing down, given that the current title could remain as a redirect and that the Old Norse name would be highlighted in the first sentence. I might change my opinion if either opposing editors could mention any easily accessible sources which support their assertions in the same way that the nominator has provided three sources. Green Giant (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Academic texts stick to the Old Norse for good reason. For example, Rudolf Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology and, well, the mountain of academia that has mentioned Vanaheimr at any point in the past few hundred years. Again, please see Naming conventions (Norse mythology), where this has been thoroughly handled in the past. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The proposal cites two sources; None have been cited in opposition, so on the evidence we have it's no contest. Agree that using the common name rather than the academic version is not dumbing down, but that assumes that the claimed academic version has been verified, and it hasn't been. As for the argument that the older version is the correct name and we should use it to encourage others to do so, that's exactly the sort of promotion that Wikipedia policy bans. We use English, we don't try to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not verified and no other sources? Please, I wrote this article; try just about any scholarly source, including Simek's standard handbook, which I mentioned above. Or even a basic Google Books search, where you will find numerous academic sources employing the Old Norse, as we should here. Have you totally ignored my responses here? There is no "English" form of this Old Norse proper noun, the closest you're going to get is this attempt to anglify it by dropping the nominative -r. The vast majority of works mentioning Vanaheimr are scholarly in nature; the original form is thus by far the most commonly used form of the name in the English language. This entire discussion seems to have been borne of ignorance from this fact. It is, quite frankly, a total waste of time for all involved. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please, and you might like to read WP:OWN as well. Thank you for the link, it tells only half of the story but it's progress. Unfortunately, when I did the corresponding search for Vanaheim it seemed to be the more popular name, so it seems to support the move. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do please outline the "personal attack", as I haven't made one. You were presented with sources and claimed otherwise, it's as simple as that. Secondly, being the primary author and actually familiar with the matter at hand does not mean that I am having WP:OWN issues, and I'll thank you to tuck that in. Third, I suggest you take a closer look; a substantial amount of those anglicized hits are for a comic book company, Aardvark-Vanaheim, and the amount the vast amount of scholarly material out there beyond Google Books dwarfs even those hits. Seriously, this is a waste of time. Again, consider the use of the word in scholarly circles and consider how much of that there is out there even beyond Google Books. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you have read the policy to which I linked above. The lead there begins Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. My greatest concern is your use of the word ignorance, which does not relate to content but instead to the contributors, myself presumably included. Other replies below. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that I've been on Wikipedia for several years, I may have encountered it once or twice, yes. Nobody made a personal attack on you; you've made it very clear that you are, yes, ignorant about the subject. Otherwise you wouldn't asking for "evidence" regarding the academic record here. It would be plain enough. Start with Simek, get your hands on further scholarly material addressing the subject. I gave you a link to Google Books. There's a ton of it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The -r spelling is in keeping with current scholarly practice and current Wikipedia practice. Haukur (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Evidence? No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per article status quo, per Users (i) Bloodofox (ii) Trevj and (iii) Haukur, but most importantly per the markedly better relations to subject matter and context for results for the existing article titles in Google Scholar compared to the proposed new names in Google Books. Also a problem that hasn't been mentioned - the move from Álfheimr would be to Álfheim per some sources not Alfheim. And finally MOS "consistent with related articles" in Category:Locations in Norse mythology which shows a high-MOS and if not total consistency at least a tendency to the status quo names here. At the very most I would expect that the only thing that is going to happen here is a relist not a move. In the meantime those who are active contributors and content providers to the Norse mythology pages may wish to expand WP:Naming conventions (Norse mythology) to explain and make consistent the usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Old Norse is the lingua franca in this field. As pointed out in relation to Álfheim vs. Alfheim, anglicizations vary; one also encounters "Giantland" and "Vanir-home", and for several personal names, versions which are actually Swedish/Danish. Scholars therefore sensibly use a normalized Old Norse spelling; this is what the most reliable sources use; and this is therefore what we should continue to use. Redirects serve to help those who are not sure what the word is, or who have previously encountered it in a particular anglicized spelling, and the articles themselves explain the connection between, for example, Vanir and Vanaheimr or more obviously elves and Álfheimr, both of which are part of our function as an encyclopedia that should be a step up from popular works. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
My reply to the NPA issue is instream above.

You were presented with sources and claimed otherwise, it's as simple as that. False statement. I made no false claim.

Secondly, being the primary author and actually familiar with the matter at hand does not mean that I am having WP:OWN issues, and I'll thank you to tuck that in. I did not claim any such connection. But if you think that your tone is not a problem with respect to that policy, then OK, let's agree to disagree for the moment.

Third, I suggest you take a closer look; a substantial amount of those anglicized hits are for a comic book company, Aardvark-Vanaheim, and the amount the vast amount of scholarly material out there beyond Google Books dwarfs even those hits. Important and topical point, and one that is appearing in a large number of recent RMs, see for example Talk:Jelena Dokic closing admin's summary says in part points are well taken that usage in inferior sources cannot trump usage in superior ones on this or any other issue.

Seriously, this is a waste of time. Disagree. It's an important area in which we are clarifying a gradually changing policy.

Again, consider the use of the word in scholarly circles and consider how much of that there is out there even beyond Google Books. Please be specific. If others present evidence as easy to follow links, while you rely on vague statements such as this, you can't complain that your evidence is being ignored. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you were provided with evidence prior to claiming that you were not. I mentioned Simek, for example, whereas you said no evidence was presented. Simek's handbook is the premier scholarly handbook on the subject. Aardvark-Vanaheim or Conan the Barbarian references are not references to Vanaheimr at all. References to this comic book company have nothing to do with the most commonly used term to refers to the location in Norse mythology whatsoever and should therefore be ignored. A lot of scholarly material isn't going to be found online, like Simek. Google Books does not dictate our policy, but it makes it perfectly clear that there's a huge amount of material actually referring to this location in Norse mythology that uses the Old Norse form with nothing to do with the comic book company or Conan the Barbarian, and further makes it perfectly clear that it is standard practice in scholarly circles to use the non-anglicized form. Vanaheimr is therefore indeed the most commonly used form for our purposes here. Further, I will point out that I think the whole discussion is indeed a waste of time; these efforts could be put into actually improving articles. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are splitting hairs. The proposer provided two links to works supporting the move. In your reply you provided no references at all. In your fourth post, replying to another support vote, you provided one reference with no link (despite it being easily found on the web  ). On the evidence, there was no contest, exactly as I said.


 * Agree that the comic book company and its works are of little relevance, but perhaps not none, depending on the basis of the storyline. But if you are going to quote Google books as you did, you need to do both searches, not just the one, and explain (as you now have) why you don't accept the result.


 * But I must repeat, to call me or anyone else ignorant here is uncalled for. Do you now understand and accept that? Andrewa (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not splitting hairs. Look, I mentioned Simek and general scholarship in this area about a week prior to you inaccurately chiming in with "The proposal cites two sources; None have been cited in opposition, so on the evidence we have it's no contest." I didn't have to give you a link to the publication. In fact, I didn't bother because there's no preview available and I would presume you can find your own evidence for the existence of a publication if needed. It's a common reference on this subject matter. But, yes, you were simply wrong.


 * The Conan references and Aardvark-Vanaheim references have nothing to do with the Vanaheim in question here; they are indeed irrelevant for the purpose of the name of this article. I don't know what you mean by "both searches". I provided results for Vanaheim and Vanaheimr. I presumed you could sort out the comic book from the popular culture and the scholarly. The latter search I also presume would indicate to you that there's a massive amount of this not available through Google Books, as is the case with all scholarship.


 * I won't rescind my employment of the word ignorant in the context that I used it. You do seem ignorant on the scholarship on this matter. That's the simple fact of it; I'm pretty ignorant on the subject of astronautic aerospace engineering. I have no shame in admitting it. I would not consider someone pointing it out to me to be a personal attack. Neither should you. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At best, that is a mistake of mine. It's not a justification for a personal attack. You are quite right to raise the content issue that the source exists.


 * Please don't restring my comments . I put that one exactly where I intended it . Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not insert your comments into my own. I consider that an alteration of my own comments and also consider it very rude. Do it again and I will move your comments out of my comments again, regardless of your intention. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will abide by your request, I hope this response doesn't offend. It's OK to follow your signature, but not to branch a string off between paragraphs, is that the idea? I consider what I did normal stringing where the indenting makes the authorship and original integrity of the posts obvious, and it's fairly common in Wikipedia, and I've never seen anybody object to it before that I can remember. It makes discussions far easier to follow IMO. But I do see that Help:Using talk pages doesn't actually mention doing this, either way.


 * Considering that you feel at liberty to move other people's comments out of their context, I find your outrage at this stringing technique quite ironical. Andrewa (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel the "liberty" to remove your comments when you've put them in mine, yes. What happens when I respond to the comments you've inserted into mine? Soon it becomes an unsigned mess impossible to follow. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. If we all follow the conventions, then it's easy to follow. On the other hand, if you move my comments out of their context, you destroy the stringing and there's the potential for misquoting me.


 * I will in future avoid imbedding my comments between your paragraphs, and phrase them appropriately to comply with this restriction. But it seems a shame to have a special convention just for you. If you feel this one is important and helpful, why not propose it at Help talk:Using talk pages? Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned to you earlier, I've edited here for several years. I've only seen people do that a few times, and it does create confusion for readers. It results in tangents of unsigned comments. Leaving sardonic comments such as "seems a shame to have a special convention just for you" aren't doing you any favors; simply do not insert your comments into my own and call it a day. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether you rescind it or not. Just stop it. If you think the policy should be changed to allow it, then raise that opinion in the appropriate forums. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as my explanation didn't change your opinion on the comment (regarding "ignorant"), I apologize. It wasn't my intention for that to be taken as a personal attack. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That particular policy is IMO one of the most misunderstood. It doesn't imply vindictiveness, it's far more general and early-intervention, and covers all ad hominem arguments and more. Or it's even possible that I misunderstand the policy myself, or that it's changing, I note for example that the long-standing nutshell Comment on the content, not on the contributor has been relegated to the lead (with subsequent discussion that then deleted the nutshell altogether). Perhaps we should get a third opinion? I've never used Wikiquette assistance but that seems to me to be the next stop. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly interested either way, to be honest with you. Take it where you want; I see no reason to be offended, and gave you an apology if you need one. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not so much a qestion of offense as of keeping the discussion focussed and constructive, and in accordance to other Wikipedia policies. Andrewa (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.