Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:24, 25 February 2008

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Mythology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed Merger of Kobold Pages

This article isn't at all organized, isn't formatted normally, and contradicts itself! At the moment, i don't know enough about it to fix it myself. --Heah 07:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support. Do we really need 3 pages about Kobolds? One on the general case, one for D&D, and one for other games? Otherwise, I agree with Heah.

-- GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Having more than one page allows for easier disambiguation of a topic, and allows the focus of each page to be more narrow. Besides, a D&D kobold is a completely different fellow from a mythological kobold. BOZ

Oppose. Keep the folklore and anorak stuff seperate! --MacRusgail 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New Idea. I see how the folklore stuff could be seperate (although it's still pretty short). Could we combine the two gamer pages, at least? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Several imaginary creatures share the same name in various works. Goblins, for instance, appear in folklore, Tolkien's works, Everquest, and Dungeons & Dungeons, yet none are exactly the same creature. Merging subjects just because they share the same name would make articles unneccessarily long, cluttered, & confusing. This is why we have disambiguation pages. --Robbstrd 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. To retort the above, none of the articles are long at all; they're already confusing; and Kobold has no disambiguation page. The longest part is probably the least important (the D&D stuff). I think the goblin article maybe has the length and depth to be seperate, but I'm not sure three short articles, without proper links to one another is the right answer. As for the folklore, I do wish someone would flesh out the folklore page. I think it's really interesting. OK, well, then this is still marked for cleanup, and maybe that will take care of it all. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Basis. I don't think that merging D&D's kobold and the mythological kobold in one page is a good idea. After all, the myth kobold was the base for the D&D's kobold, so pretty much, no, I don't agree.

They're different things. For example, if you're gonna merge into one page every "King Arthur" that people write about, you'd find out that Arthur was actually named "Arthuria" and bore the cogname of "Saber", and everyone knows that there's adedicated space for that kind of information.

Oppose. Since 3rd Edition D&D Kobolds have almost nothing to do with the folklore kobolds, I doubt merging them would be wise. Besides, given the significantly greater culture behind D&D kobolds, merging the folklore kobolds into it would probably relegate the folklore to a single paragraph or footnote. 124.190.224.8 08:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose D&D kobolds have been completely divorced from their folklore namesakes since 1st edition, mixing the two in the same article would lengthen the page needlessly and cause confusion. Similarly, games have made enough use of them that a separate page on kobolds in gaming seems to be a defensible proposition. --Svartalf 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. All they share with the folkloric kobolds are their name. -- Poisonink (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kobolds in a nutshell

I see that the article isn't organized well, but I'm not exactly certain where it is contradictory. Other than the fact that Kobolds have evolved to mean different things over time.

As I see it, in brief:

1. Kobold comes from German, and loosely translates as Goblin.

2. Kobolds primarily seem to fill the class of house spirit such as Domovoi in Slavic Folklore. They can be mischevious, or helpful, depending on how they are treated. They also seem to often be the spirit of a child killed in or near the house.

3. Now having been established as a mischevious goblin like creature, Miner's name the metal Cobalt after them, believing that silver has been replaced by "Kobolds" with the more useless metal.

4. Popular fantasy, mostly influenced by DnD, has diverged from the original meaning of Kobold. Different versions of DnD have described them differently. The most recent version has clearly described them as small reptilian humanoids. However, earlier versions have also called them Dog-like, and many people have come to think of them as such. Thus, their appearance in the Suikoden game as a dog race.

5. Neil Gaimen uses them in American Gods in a way that is closer to their original house spirit meaning. However, like much in that book, he twists the meaning. The name seems obviously derived from Heinzelmännchen, but instead of being the spirit of a dead child, it is a spirit that kills children. But then performs it's protective spirit role for the whole town. I can't seem to find any reference to the tribal protective spirit nature of Kobolds, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or anything about the stabbing and wrapping a child.

Ok, so now I know more than I ever expected to about Kobolds. I'm not sure if I'm the one to write the article however...

Best sources I can find is:

Kobold at Everything2

Kobold from American Heritage Dictionary

--Deinol 23:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Here's a draft rewrite. I've deleted the "kobold named after cobalt" theory - kobolds predate the (1730s) discovery of cobalt - as well as the tribal god bit. I can't find it anywhere either, but it can be reinstated if anyone can provide a reliable source. User:Raygirvan:Raygirvan May 06 2005

2nd edition

It should be noted that fantasy kobolds in D&D suffered a major change from dog like creatures in 2nd edition to lizardfolk in 3rd edition

Small Gods Section?

The section referring to "Small gods" seems to come -completely- out of the blue, and is therefore rather confusing, and certainly sounds completely unsupported. Is this in referrence to Neil Gaiman's book, or folklore of some regional spiritualism/superstition, or is it simply baseless?

Section removed pending some kind of referrence/citation or having it make sense. Here it is:

As far as small gods go, a Kobold is one of the more quaintly created. A kobold is usually the remains of a Teuton/Germanic tribal good-luck-god. These gods were made by raising an infant in an underground hut for five years, never letting it see the sun. Then, on its fifth birthday, it would be dragged up at night, and before the entire tribe be pierced by two blades -- one of bronze, the other of steel. The body would then by held over the flames until dry and brown; the end result would be a small dry fetish which would be carried around and worshipped. When the creature and container were finally destroyed and forgotten, the remains of the god would become a Kobold or a Brownie. They are usually bitter and malicious, a product of their creation and abandonment.

Tchalvak 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I quote from a note in Herbert Hoover's translation of De Re Metallica, in which Hoover quotes from another of Agricola's works, De Animantibus Subterraneis: "Then there are the gentle kind which the Germans as well as the Greeks call cobalos, because they mimic men." Agricola goes on to describe creatures identical to knockers. If we accept this derivation, presumably the term was extended from the (benevolent) knockers to include malicious mine goblins, from whence we get kobolds, cobalt, and so forth. Choess 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I propose a merger of the three pages:

1. Kobold
2. Kobolds in gaming
3. Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons)

There's no reason to have three pages covering the same topic. It might be better to have one main article (this one), which branches off into the others if(/as/when) required. At this point, it makes the whole thing a good bit messy. xC | ☎ 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Partial Support. I say merge the gaming pages, (maybe into Kobold (RPG)?) but leave the folklore seperate; disambig at the top. --mordicai. 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was leaning towards the same thing. I support Mordicai's suggestion.xC | ☎ 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Partial Support. As per mordicai.. The Kobold article is about a German spirit, entitely unrelated to the other two. Robert Brockway 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I roll a "1" on support Feh, this seems to be a pointless exercise in merger. I can go along with Mordicai. I would argue there is no operational impact. Kobolds in DnD 3.5 are reptilian, while kobolds in WoW and DnD 2.0 are rodent-like. Dominick 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, as these articles are unusual candidates for merger (even the two on gaming): most mergers are a good idea on practical grounds (they cover overlapping or small amounts of information, neither of which is really true for these three articles). The real question is whether the data is sufficiently notable. Also, a similar proposal seems to exist on this talk page in the section above. How is this proposal very different from that one? (Excluding the argument from frivolity, mythological Kobolds have more in common with the D&D version than that species does with many of the other gaming variants, so we could equally argue for a merger of the D&D & mythological articles on grounds of similarity). Therefore, I suggest a merger of the merger suggestions. --Wragge 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose. The urge to group together vaguely related subjects that share a name and not much else is unencyclopedic, sloppy, and unprofessional. It makes a mess of Misplaced Pages and reflects poorly on the ignorant, if well-intentioned, busybodies who propose such things. - Poisonink (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The merge suggestion seems to have been soundly rejected. I'm removing the notices. — Dulcem (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead facts

I recently rewrote the lead to this article to match the information I found in my studies and which I used to write the article body. In rewriting the lead, I removed some facts that my sources did not back up. If anyone can provide references for this material, it probably belongs somewhere in the article. Here are the facts that were removed:

• The name comes from "Kobe" = house, hut and the word "hold" = comely, good (Paul Hermann, "Deutsche Mythologie") and is often translated in English as goblin.

• Kobold is often translated in English as goblin.

• The most common version is the Heinzelmännchen.

• Kobold is often used in German to translate the word leprechaun, a type of Irish fairy goblin.

• I removed the note about Kobold being a German surname as irrelevant.

Thanks for any help! — Dulcem (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

OK, I'll jot some notes here: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, alotta redlinks. I'll try to blue some later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately bogie links to the train thingies....need to figure out what you want it to link to in bogey....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notes so far. I'll try to kill some red links too. Just wrote kobalos, for example. — Dulcem (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had much spare time. I have another source with some stuff to add as well. looking good though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

• Requests for peer review
• Start-Class Mythology articles
• Mid-importance Mythology articles