Talk:Panserbjørne

There is a grammatical error in this article. "A panserbjørne" should be changed to "A panserbjørn" as "panserbjørne is plural. It would be the same as saying "An armoured bears" in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.102.85 (talk • contribs)

I'm changing the citation for Panserbjørne from Danish to Norwegian. Though it does translate "armoured bears" in Danish, it also translates "armoured bears" in Norwegian. Since the bears are from Svalbard, I feel the change is appropriate, as Svalbard is Norwegian territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.213.139 (talk • contribs)

In our world, yes, but this isn't about our world. Panserbjørn is presumably "Norrowayan". Read the books. garik 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading parts of Northern Lights, I have discovered that they never use Panserbjørne in the singular form, but say "one of the Panserbjørne", so presumably it is plural, not singular. I am yet to scan it totaly thoroughly, but I think 87.49 is correct in this regard. As a general rule, I always assume things in parallel copies of our worlds are the same unless stated otherwise, or conditions in the otherworld are sufficiently different to make it impossible for them to be the same in both worlds, which may be a little POV I will admit, but the languages of HDM seem to be gramatically exactly the same as our world, just using different vocabulary. However, I will not make any changes until I have searched thoroughly and found evidence either way.211.30.132.2 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Panserbjørner' not 'Panserbjørne'

'Panserbjørne' is grammatical wrong and should be changed to 'Panserbjørner' (Armored Bears), and the article name to 'Panserbjørn' (Armored Bear). Unless it is written 'Panserbjørne' in plural form in the book, then it is not Norwegian as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.184.8 (talk • contribs)

And so it is. Let's keep in mind that this is a fictional race, living in a fictional country in a fictional world, who happen to be named in a fictional language based on Norwegian. Don't let's confuse the two. garik 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- in the book they are referred to as "Panserbjørne" and should therefore be named as such in the article. If the book was ambigous, however, I would support the name change.211.30.132.2 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Panserbjørne' is the grammatically correct plural form of 'armored bears' in Danish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.66.176.57 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armed and Unarmed

I have reverted the reference to "armed" combat to "unarmed". If they were to fight in armed combat, they would need weapons, not armour. You can have armour on, but be unarmed- like wearing a bulletproof vest, but not carrying a gun. And "armoured combat" is not a term. If they used swords, guns, or something else, then they would be armed. Just explaining my changes. 211.30.132.2 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they don't have guns or swords or any "normal" weapon, bears will always have their claws that are their weapons which makes them armed, so saying that they are unarmed combatants with armor is a false statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.134.40 (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

All merge templates go here.

Anyway, I have suggested this merge because the subjects are not notable on their own, but are worth noting in a list about all the races and creatures. If no one objects, I may do this soon. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do merge. Otherwise these pages will evenly be brought up for AfD sooner or later. Many articles also desperately need sources. --S.dedalus 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't have time now, but I'll do it tomorrow. :-) Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, however, we already have Characters of His Dark Materials

maybe we can have a section Characters of His Dark Materials#Races and creatures instead

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems like a good idea it seems a bit odd that the bears have a seperate article. The article needs Sources too. Phillipmorantking (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have races and creatures in a separate article rather than as a subsection of characters. But merge them, by all means. --Tone 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a good idea. A list satisfies notability provided that the concept is notable; it is not necessary to demonstrate notability for each item in the list. Also, it will give better context e.g. for Tualapi to be on the same page as Mulefa. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]