Talk:Norse rituals

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/February.

Wikipedia

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)[reply]

I'd agree with Holt. These do seem like rival articles.--Wetman (talk) 22:09, 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.--★ Regicollis ^T^·^C 18:20, 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. –Holt T•C 20:17, 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.

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)[reply]