Talk:The dragon (Beowulf): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:54, 19 October 2011 editDragonsdreamers (talk \| contribs)1 edit every thing← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:03, 20 October 2011 edit undoVictoriaearle (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits Undid revision 456438179 by Dragonsdreamers (talk) undo unexplained deletionNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1={{WPASK\|importance = high\| class = B}}
	Coiled in a cavern beneath a gray rock there is a terrifing dragon a fire drake measuring 50ft long. The dragon guards a lair filled with piles of tresure. Its heavy body blocks daylight from reaching the armor, goblets, jewels ,coins, and golden swords it hoards deep in the cave. When a theif steals a golden cup from its lair it goes on a rampage through the countryside,burning everything it sees. The fire drake breathes flames that light up the sky, terrifying villagers and burning every home in Geatland. Beowulf, king of the Geats, armed with a magic sword, leads an army into battle face to face. Beowulf strikes the dragon with his sword , but the blow glances off the beats terrible hide. Beowulf is engulfed in the dragons flame, a sight so terrifing that his army flees. Only the faithful Wiglaf remains to help. Beowulf breaks of the blade of his sword in the dragons head. Beowulf is soaked in his own blood but continues fighting. Wiglaf stabs the dragon in a vulnerable place and Beowulf slashes through the middle, cutting the monster in two and ending its life. ] (]) 23:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Literature}}
			{{WPMA}}
			{{dyktalk\|27 May\|2010\|entry=... that the first fire-breathing ''']''' in ] occurs in the ] ] '']''?}}
			}}

			== Merge of ] into Article ==
			''This discussion was copied from the discussion at ] 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)''

			Currently this stub is rather not notable and ought to be merged and deleted or at least redirected to the correct section of Beowulf. Any other thoughts? ] (]) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Oppose - There are other articles linking back to Beowulf (e.g. ], ]) which are equally notable and which, if also merged, would make the Beowulf article unwieldy. An article on Characters in Beowulf might work better, but The Dragon is a known character in the myth, and should also link back to a dragon disambiguation page.] (]) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
			:So get rid of the unnecessary detail. This article has no information that makes it notable, is even unnamed. I don't think this qualifies it for a child article. ] (]) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
			::I'd argue that a character from a particularly well-known legend is more notable than, say, a character in a film, many of which are deemed notable enough for articles of their own.] (]) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
			:::Characters in films should be deleted unless someone goes out of their way to collect sources for them, anyway. ] (]) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Oppose per ]. Also the article can be expanded considerably. Scholarship exists to support an article for each separate section if necessary. ] (]) 15:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
			{{od}}The problem with the article is that the fight rather than the dragon recieves the scholarship, see . The dragon itself, which has no significant characterization nor name, therefore does not have lasting repercussions. On the other hand, the character of the battle does, and is hardly covered in the main article. Therefore child article should not exist yet. Also, the article has little real need throughout the rest of the Encyclopedia, see . ] (]) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Ah, I see your point. But surely the first step is to either seek a greater level of references and citations in relation to the Dragon itself (particularly focusing on its description and characteristics), or else propose a change to the article title (and possibly also to the Grendel and Grendel’s Mother articles) to ‘Beowulf and the Dragon’. Some components of the article are repetitive of what appears in the main Beowulf article, and should be trimmed.
			:The problem in my view is that the Beowulf article is of a good length, and that linked, supporting articles are also at least start-class or better. I also think that this article should form part of a number of looking at British and English Dragons more generally.
			:The Dragon article should certainly be better written (I think most dragon articles suffer from this) and its purpose made more clear (the one liner about it under ] does a better job in a lot less space), but I don’t think a challenge to its notability stands up as there is a lot of Tolkein-focused literary research out there which could be brought into play, in that Beowulf was studied and translated by Tolkein, and its fire-breathing, cave-dwelling, treasure-guarding characteristics were clearly the basis for ] in ], directly influencing the dragon archetype adopted in modern fantasy literature.] (]) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
			::] could use expansion, and in fact Sadads' does have material about the dragon. The article size is another important consideration (I'd intended to mention it, but Metabaronic beat me to it). ] comes in at over 6000 words of readable prose;] at over 2000 words of readable prose. If the ] were to be included here, then a precedent is set to include Grendel's mother as well, which would result in an overly lengthy article. Also agree that Tolkien's work should be incorporated in ] as part of the expansion of that page. ] (]) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:03, 20 October 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms High‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages

	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 Misplaced Pages. 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from The dragon (Beowulf) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first fire-breathing dragon in English literature occurs in the Old English epic poem Beowulf?

A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2010/May.

Misplaced Pages

Merge of The Dragon (Beowulf) into Article

This discussion was copied from the discussion at Talk:Beowulf 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently this stub is rather not notable and ought to be merged and deleted or at least redirected to the correct section of Beowulf. Any other thoughts? Sadads (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are other articles linking back to Beowulf (e.g. Grendel, Grendel's Mother) which are equally notable and which, if also merged, would make the Beowulf article unwieldy. An article on Characters in Beowulf might work better, but The Dragon is a known character in the myth, and should also link back to a dragon disambiguation page.Metabaronic (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So get rid of the unnecessary detail. This article has no information that makes it notable, is even unnamed. I don't think this qualifies it for a child article. Sadads (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that a character from a particularly well-known legend is more notable than, say, a character in a film, many of which are deemed notable enough for articles of their own.Metabaronic (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Characters in films should be deleted unless someone goes out of their way to collect sources for them, anyway. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Metabaronic. Also the article can be expanded considerably. Scholarship exists to support an article for each separate section if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that the fight rather than the dragon recieves the scholarship, see This google scholar search. The dragon itself, which has no significant characterization nor name, therefore does not have lasting repercussions. On the other hand, the character of the battle does, and is hardly covered in the main article. Therefore child article should not exist yet. Also, the article has little real need throughout the rest of the Encyclopedia, see . Sadads (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. But surely the first step is to either seek a greater level of references and citations in relation to the Dragon itself (particularly focusing on its description and characteristics), or else propose a change to the article title (and possibly also to the Grendel and Grendel’s Mother articles) to ‘Beowulf and the Dragon’. Some components of the article are repetitive of what appears in the main Beowulf article, and should be trimmed.

The problem in my view is that the Beowulf article is of a good length, and that linked, supporting articles are also at least start-class or better. I also think that this article should form part of a number of looking at British and English Dragons more generally.

The Dragon article should certainly be better written (I think most dragon articles suffer from this) and its purpose made more clear (the one liner about it under European dragon does a better job in a lot less space), but I don’t think a challenge to its notability stands up as there is a lot of Tolkein-focused literary research out there which could be brought into play, in that Beowulf was studied and translated by Tolkein, and its fire-breathing, cave-dwelling, treasure-guarding characteristics were clearly the basis for Smaug in The Hobbit, directly influencing the dragon archetype adopted in modern fantasy literature.Metabaronic (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Dragon (Beowulf) could use expansion, and in fact Sadads' google scholar search does have material about the dragon. The article size is another important consideration (I'd intended to mention it, but Metabaronic beat me to it). Beowulf comes in at over 6000 words of readable prose;Grendel's mother at over 2000 words of readable prose. If the The Dragon (Beowulf) were to be included here, then a precedent is set to include Grendel's mother as well, which would result in an overly lengthy article. Also agree that Tolkien's work should be incorporated in The Dragon (Beowulf) as part of the expansion of that page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories: