Talk:Beowulf

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Beowulf

Even though it's Old English, Beowulf is a fictional character in the same way Harry Potter is. What would make it exempt from the rules? —CodeCat 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Oxford, an Old English epic poem celebrating the legendary Scandinavian hero Beowulf. So it must have been written in Old English. I assume you're referring to the Old English entry, neither entry is tagged. DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities, Beowulf as a work of world literature could merit an entry apparently by consensus: A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. As with place names, I would advocate for an amendment to CFI that would secure inclusion of all mythological terms as an exception to the fictional universes subsection under which it would arguably fall: there is much value in having entries with etymologies for the names of gods, mythological locations, and so forth. Which makes my vote on this matter a definite and (to me) obvious keep, by the way. — Kleio (t · c) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Can't seriously be comparing this ancient literature to a recent children's book. The fact that it's a single word makes it more keepable than a forename-surname combo, also. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be kept, otherwise some other entries such as King Arthur and all the associated entries would also be prone to deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep (all words in all languages) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep, of course. It's a single word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Being by chance a single word shouldn't make any difference. DonnanZ (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It does according to Wiktionary policy - all words, all languages. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What I really meant was it should be kept regardless of whether it's one or two words. DonnanZ (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How about Shakespearean characters like Lothario and Romeo?--Prisencolin (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not opposed to Harry Potter either. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wulf=Hunter?

Can anyone explain the etymology of "wolf", and how it is not related to the animal, but rather to the verb "to hunt"? Or that the etymology of the animal's name means "hunter"? Thanks. 110.54.251.28 11:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It is most definitely related to the animal. Don't think so literally. This was meant to be looked at figuratively: "a wolf of bees", in other words, "a bear". A wolf is a known hunter, so saying "a wolf of bees" is more or less also saying "a hunter of bees". This is a good example of a kenning, just like "whale road", "whale way", and "sail road" meaning "sea". Similarly, we have "sleep of the sword" for death, "heaven's gem" for the Sun, and the like. Tharthan (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)