This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a
WikiProject related to all activities of the
NorthGermanic 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
A fact from Norse rituals appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 February 2009, and was viewed approximately 902 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in a festival at the Norse
Temple at Uppsala, men and male animals were sacrificed by hanging?
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? –
HoltT•
C19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
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·C18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
[1]) and not "mythology". Some sections being larger than others has nothing to say, that only makes room for improval of the smaller sections. –
HoltT•
C20:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)reply
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 {{main|subject}} 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)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.