Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 06:36, 21 February 2009 [1].

---

List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology

Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements. I've recently rewritten valkyrie from scratch (now GA), for which this is a subpage, and you may be interested in having a look at that too if this list interests you. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are self-redirects from the navbox, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just caught that too. I fixed the one redirect in the introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments (yobmod)Support - all queries answered.

• The names of the works they appear in would be better linked each time, as the first linking moves when sorted.

Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think the translations shouldnot be sortable, as they are not standard (some have more than one translation). Sorting would imply to a reader that they can simply sort and look for the meaning, which doesn't work for "Help" for example.

Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first sentence needs re-jigging- "...who choose who..." is confusing (even if not technichally wrong.

I changed it to "...who choose which warriors who will win or die...", but that might need rewording as English isn't my first language. –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed.

• Can the one entry in the source column with an explanation have the name of the source first for sorting (or use a sort key).

Done! –Holt (T•C) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Are the entries for the sources written so that the major/earlier source is first? If not, it should be, or maybe even 2 columns (Earliest source and other sources). This latter method would be great if not too wide, and the information is known.

I agree that this would have been very handy, but I am not sure if the markup would work correctly. Quoting from meta:Help:Table: "With colspan and rowspan cells can span several columns or rows," ... "However, this has the disadvantage that sorting does not work properly anymore." If someone with more experience with tables could look into this, I'd be grateful. I'll read some more on the help pages and see what I can do. –Holt (T•C) 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Reading your comment again, I understand you didn't imply anything about colspan/rowspan, which I thought at first. It should be doable regarding the dating of the sources, and this is basically how it would look (mark all, copy, paste on Wikipedia and preview). I'll let Bloodofox say his opinion before anything is done here. –Holt (T•C) 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to figure what are "major" and "minor" sources here. They are all major sources for our purposes. All of these sources were recorded around the same time, but they reach much further back. It will be problematic to trot out all of the theories regarding dating here, but suffice to say that much of it comes from much earlier oral tradition. With these factors in mind, I would just leave them listed as they are. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if there is no good way to detirmine which is earlier, then this is fine.

• I take it this includes all of the names used in the sources? (so is presumably comprehensive?)

Only sources specifically referring to figures as valkyries. The problem with including all of the mentions of all of the figures is that their names are commonly employed in skaldic literature in kennings, which would mean listing a whole lot of works that only use valkyrie names as synonyms for "battle." It wouldn't be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK.

• Could it not be renamed to simply "List of Valkyries" (keeping current name as redirect)? The current list is both a list of name meanings and list of orignal sources, so if there is no conflict with other lists, a general name would be better for a sortable list. Are there notable Valkyries outside of Norse mythology?

The problem is that there are a lot of valkyries in Wagner and a lot of valkyries in anime, video games, and manga, for example. This article is specifically about valkyries in Norse mythology. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, just "List of Valkyries in Norse mythology" (removing the names part).

Well, it's specifically a list of names that are outright referred to as valkyries. There are other figures that could be valkyries that are not specifically called this, etc. The reason for the specific title is because who could or could not be a valkyrie can get complex fast without precision. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Confusing: "The valkyrie name Herja may point to a connection to the name of the goddess Hariasa, who is attested from a stone from 187 CE." Which one does "who" refer to, and what is meant by "attested", the existance of the Godess? The link in mythology? Yobmod (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The stone from 187 CE refers to Hariasa. In this case, as everywhere else it is used when referring to sources, 'attestation' means "to bear witness; give testimony." In other words, the source says it was a goddess, therefore the goddess is attested by that source. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So the stone attests to the existance of such a goddess, rather than attesting to the link between the names? I think this should be clarified. Modern scholar saying there is a link is notthe same as archeological proof of such, which is how i first understood it.

Yes, that is correct. Hariasa is attested on the stone inscription. I've adjusted the prose to reflect this perhaps a bit more clearly. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment Why aren't the Rök Runestone and the Karlevi Runestone mentioned?--Berig (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Bloodofox left these out on purpose because they are not specifically referred to as valkyries on the stones. diff –Holt (T•C) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have only mentioned sources where the figures are outright called valkyries. The reason for this is because if they're not outright referred to as valkyries it gets complicated; all of those Brynhildr mentions, all of those Hildr mentions, the iffy Róta mentions. The Prose Edda says Hildr is the same figure as Brynhildr, Hildr appears as a witch, Brynhildr appears in several late sources, and it's not even clear we're talking about the same figure sometimes, and so on and so on. Better to just leave those attestations out and handle them on their individual articles (when there is enough information for an individual article) or things get too complicated for the purpose of this list. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't mentioned as Valkyries in some of the sources that are included, i.e. Oddrúnargrátr[2] and Grímnismál[3], unless I've missed something.--Berig (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article is to narrow down the attestations to only sources where each name is explicity said to refer to a Valkyrie, I think it has to be explained in the lead, if not in the name of the list.--Berig (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I strike that seeing that there is information which I missed.--Berig (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also the zillion kenning mentions, which is why I came to the conclusion that I had to narrow the list down to only where the figures are specifically referred to as valkyries. I'll remove the Oddrúnargrátr mention, since I may have missed this from my earlier purge, but it seems to me that it's doubtless that Odin refers to the list in Grímnismál as that of a list of valkyries, although he doesn't use the name "bear me a horn .... einherjar in Valhalla ..." :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There's no reason to include the runestones unless the other kenning attestations are included as well.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Easily the best list of valkyries there is, online and offline. It is thoroughly sourced, comprehensive, clear and well-written. –Holt (T•C) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A very interesting and well done list. "where the deceased warriors become einherjar." A brief description of what einherjar are would be helpful for those not knowlegeable in Norse mythology. Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. "Valkyries also appear as lovers " "Valkyrie names commonly place emphasis on associations"-->Valkyrie names commonly emphasize associations Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the kind words! I will respond to your recommendations numerically: Well, I think the einherjar are pretty well described there already. As the valkyrie list says, they are deceased warriors who have died in battle and are chosen by the valkyries to prepare with Odin in Valhalla the events of Ragnarök. That sums it up. Is there some policy about this somewhere? I've been adding periods to the ends of my captions for some time and I'd like to know. I think the also is necessary here as not all valkyries appear as lovers of humans. In fact, this only happens with certain valkyries in the heroic poems (see valkyrie). Changed per suggestion. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) WP:MOS#CAPTIONS. Everything else looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks—I removed the period. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support -- All my potential objections have been answered. Rules99 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.