Talk:Elf

Elfs?

Where did the idea that 'elf' can be pluralised as 'elfs' come from? I can't find it in the Oxford English Dictionary, or Dictionary.com.--90.206.198.139 (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish the article would try to make clear what myths of the elves come from ordinary people, and what is made up by Snorre. For example I don't think people distinguished between 'light' and 'dark' elves.

The article could also include some etymology on the word elf (I always thought of it as having to do with river, that is, elves = river people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At one point it did have an extensive etymology that corroborated material from the OED (the traditional PIE derivation, meaning "brilliant white," that seems to work with the descriptions of the elves), but the etymology was (for some reason) mostly removed and the second proposed derivation was left, though it uses weasel words ("some") and is less likely (cognate of "labor," which isn't something associated with the elves until you get to much later in the tradition). I'd insert an etymology, but I don't know how to do footnote citations here. Iro (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

References?

What is "Hall 2004"? --FinnWiki (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A significant part of the article was lost at this point and afterwards, because nobody paid attention and people just deleted vandalism instead of reverting/undoing the destructive edits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"The English word elf is from the Old English ælf or elf, in reference to a midget," In reference to a midget? Where is the reference to that ridiculous idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled about that claim too. I believe this is vandalism. It was introduced a year ago. The problem was that it was followed by more vandalism, and ClueBot rolled back to the earlier vandalised revision. I still find it disconcerting that this patent nonsense has stood unquestioned for a year. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien & elf ears

"A hallmark of fantasy elves is also their long and pointed ears (a convention begun with a note of Tolkien's that the ears of elves were "leaf-shaped")." I'm sorry, but this is absurd and there's no evidence for it. Shall we list the many many illustrators of Victorian and Edwardian England, and the rest of Europe, who portrayed elves and fairies as having pointed ears? Look at any drawing by Arthur Rackham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.95.123 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've seen a few images of Father Christmas/Sinterklass etc depicted as elf like, with pointy ears and such, dating from well before Tolkien's fantasy was published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

It's pretty obvious that this page has been hijacked by someone with a Germanic agenda, or someone who has confused etymology with meaning. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist one. The over-focus on Germanic mythology rather than popular, mainstream use of the word is a mistake. More people will know Elf from World of Warcraft, Tolkien and D&D as well as European mythologies. This article should be about Elves and the Elf (germanic mythology) piped off to a different article. Davémon (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Davemon, elves are specific to Germanic mythology and do not exist in other "European mythologies". As for the popular cultural references, they all stem from the Germanic concept of elves. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article for the elves that you are talking about, Davemon: Elves in fantasy fiction and games -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Fyrefly. What about [[1]]? Doesn't that kind of thing belong somewhere? I'm just thinking that someone who comes across the word 'Elf' probably isn't coming across a folkloric concept, but rather the popular culture one. Bloodofox is wrong, elves in popular culture largely derive from Tolkien, and Tolkien has a few more sources than just the Germanic. --Davémon (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that elves have a cultural and modern literary history far prior to Tolkien's writings. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic Origin"

Someone utterly ignorant about the subject has redone the Elf page. They think the Norse are Germanic and from Germany. No, they're Scandinavian, and they are more related to us Slavs, than to Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.51.63 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever about that, I have replaced Germanic mythology with Norse mythology, which was in older versions of this article up until July 2006 when it was removed in a (IMHO) clumsy edit by an IP and never replaced. Norse mythology is also a proper Wikipedia article and this edit brings the article into line with the German-language article of the same name. Hohenloh ⁺ 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

While the article is currently very poor and in need of a rewrite (I've tagged it), elves are by every indication beings stemming from Proto-Germanic and thus not an innovation distinct to the Norse. Your placement of Old English and German attestations under "Norse mythology" is outright wrong and has also been removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article itself says: "The earliest preserved description of elves comes from Norse mythology. In Old Norse they are called álfar (nominative singular álfr)." I am also relying on the German-language article (which appears to be in a good state). See also the comments in the "Coatrack" section above, and I also agree with Fyrefly's comments below. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hohenloh, Old Norse is a Germanic language, and elves are attested prior in other Germanic languages. Old Norse records simply provide the most information we have about them. Otherwise, the German article is also pretty poor (even poorer than this one). The "coatrack" section above is plainly ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Needed

Recently I've tagged this article for a rewrite. My reasoning is that it's plagued with theory presented as fact, and one look at the reference section will dictate the core of the issue; it wasn't written with academia in hand, but rather as a semi-personal essay. However, fyrael (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the 'rewrite' tag in favor of a 'clean up' tag, stating "the article is far, far too developed already for a total rewrite to be a good idea" which I suppose we should read as 'hey, this article has been this way a long time, why bother?', despite the obvious issues. Unfortunate and counter-productive as it is, this sort of thing seems to happen when attempting to solicit others to produce a rewrite, and, as a result, I guess I'll have to leave the issue alone until I am able to sit down and produce a rewrite myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as counter-productive and arrogant as you being so WP:UNCIVIL is, I'll respond anyway. I very obviously didn't mean "this article has been this way a long time, why bother?" I meant exactly what I said: that the article is much too developed for a rewrite to be necessary. The article is well-structured for the most part and has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length. In my opinion, only mild clean up is needed and a complete rewrite would only slow down the progress toward a better article status. Let's see what consensus decides. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fyrael, if this is your idea of "developed", I'd hate to see your term papers—"has a moderate amount of reliable sources for its length"? Seriously? As the issues are clearly not glaring to you, I can only assume that you're not familiar with the material this article covers. This article suffers from the same issues as the dwarf and troll articles did before their rewrites; opinion and theory presented as fact from the very first lines, resulting in a severe entanglement throughoiut of theories preferred by the authors. This, combined with poor referencing, results in the need for a total rewrite. For example, while Hall's work is first-rate, his conclusions need to be presented separately from the attestations. "Consensus" is not needed for a rewrite of an article in a poor state, and it's simply a matter of someone making the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how many times I have to link WP:UNCIVIL before you read it and decide to stop being a child with these sad attempts at personal insults. Now, there are certainly sections with little-to-no citations used and need serious attention, but other sections are fairly well-sourced and I still think the overall structure is fine. We would probably be better off labelling individual sections with more specific clean-up tags since they have varying problems. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The structure isn't the problem. It's the content. And each section has the same set of problems, whether it's poor referencing or theory-as-fact. Look, I can see you're taking this personally, but I obviously don't know you, so don't. It is not a problem that you're not familiar enough with this material to have immediately spotted these issues, but your defense of the issues when they're brought up is. I will not accept defense of the state of this article as it stands on the grounds of being "developed", and nor should you if you are at all concerned about where you get your information from. I will prepare a rewrite as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that you don't know me, which is what makes the attempts at personal insult so childish. I'm also plenty familiar with the material and my defense of the content is completely valid, but your arrogance has blinded you to any redeeming qualities of the article. I wish you good luck with the rewrite and I hope that at as much of it as possible is valuable enough for us to include in the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I do agree with Bloodofox (talk · contribs) a rewrite is in order the above exchange starts with a difference of opinion whether a rewrite tag is in order but degrades into bickering instead of substantive discussion, so I'll start a new thread on rewrites and my own assessments. --Kiyoweap (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare

The article refers to "his elves are almost as small as insects", yet Titania is obviously large enough to say to Bottom "Sleep thou, and I will wind thee in my arms". Any comments? Peridon (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This conclusion is based on a misguided cherry-picking of passages. It also appears to be a Wikipedian's conclusion, which makes it WP:SYNTH. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this information about Elves should be allowed on this page.

Elves (singular elf) love to tell stories. I'll bet you didn't know that about elves. There's probably a lot of things you didn't know about elves. Another interesting, uh, "elfism", is that there are only three jobs available to an elf. The first is making shoes at night while the old cobbler sleeps. You can bake cookies in a tree, but as you can imagine, it's dangerous having an oven in an oak tree during the dry season. But the third job, some call it, "the Show" or "the Big Dance," it's the profession that every elf aspires to. And that is to build toys in Santa's workshop.

Elves try to stick to the four main food groups: Candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup.

The Code of the Elves: 1. Treat everyday like Christmas. 2. There's room for everyone on the nice list. 3. The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.

Elves generally love to make ginger bread houses, and eat cookie dough, and go ice skating, and even hold hands. They also love singing Christmas carols, and anything with Maple Syrup or sugar in it. They are great friends, and love to make toys. Most elves make over a thousand toys a day, but if they don't reach their quota, it doesn't mean they're cotton-headed ninny muggins, it just means that they might be better at doing other things, like changing the smoke detector batteries or bringing the Elf Choir down a whole octave (in a good way!). Every elf is important and unique, and one day might even help save Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.230.205 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

References not Corresponding to Citations

If this were a stub, then general references might be appropriate. However, as this is a fully-referenced article that is fairly mature, we need to be careful about using general references, especially references to recent books, because doing so is likely to appear promotional in nature. It has been suggested that the general references currently in the article "might" have been used in the base research for the article, but if such a connection is not obvious, then the reference should be part of an in-line citation, or it should be removed. Definitive works on Elves which are not cited should appear in a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section of this article (as previously suggested). Please feel free to make these edits. Otherwise, at least two of the four general references in this article should be removed completely. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If Alaric Hall's print publications – especially his 2004 doctoral thesis – are not highly relevant to this article, then what is? Sure, they are (relatively) recent, they are available on the web, but that speaks in favour of them, rather than against them: they are up-to-date, peer-reviewed, scholarly book sources, ffs. Why should we limit ourselves to outdated publications going as far back as Grimm when we have so much better sources to add? (In addition, after all, new research can and will supplant sources as old as Grimm.) Why should we exclude Hall 2004? Just because of the fear that we might "promote" a modern, yes, even recent scholar specialising in the subject? That's so incredibly silly that it defies belief.

Yes, he has a Wikipedia account, yes, he has edited articles, but he hasn't done that to promote himself – it wasn't him who added his stuff; but even if he had, so what? It's not against the rules, it doesn't add undue importance – it is already important! – and it helps Wikipedia. This knee-jerk reflex against "self-promotion" doesn't exactly help the problem Wikipedia has attracting experts. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hall's work is absolutely appropriate for this article, and when the rewrite comes, it should be well emphasized for exactly what it is; a modern scholarly work extensively tackling the subject. If nobody beats me to it, it's only a matter of time before I rewrite this article. As of now, however, reader beware—this article is currently crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

The elf was also popularized by Enid Blyton's many children's stories. Elves, and other such magical creatures namely pixies, brownies, goblins and so forth, are often portrayed as tiny people, with pointy ears and brown skin, that live in tree holes or tree houses. Very often, Enid Blyton's stories involve children meeting and befriending these creatures, visiting them forthe very typically British meal, 'tea'. Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dearboysandbas (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Name?

The "Name" heading is confusing (dumbed-down?). It should be "Etymology" of course. Oh, and W-i-k-i-p-e-d-i-a s-u-c-k-s. Thank you. 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.116.227 (talk)

Superstition section

I took a stab at doing a cleanup of this article, over a series of edits. I will post several topics to explain the thrust of things I did.
First off, I wanted to confine /*Mythology*/ section to content about the "race of elves" and segregate out material to do with "spirit" that cause diseases and nightmares into a the new /*Superstition*/ section. The superstitions date to Anglo-Saxon and Middle High German periods so moving them to /*Modern folklore*/ section would not be appropriate. Requesting feedback on this sectioning off. Also I tentatively subtitled /*Mythology*/ section as: "The elf as a race of supernatural beings" and /*Superstition*/ as "The elf as a spirit playing tricks", though I'm not too comfortable with the wordings, so I welcome anyone to improve them. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Before attempting any such division, which can easily stray into WP:OR territory, I recommend taking Alaric Hall's elf-related work in hand. This is by no means a simply topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider it a personal subjective judgment or WP:OR to classify mentions mythological and heroic literature under /*Mythology*/ and moving out mentions in medical books/leechbooks. It also makes no sense to class superstitions (e.g. the alp-nightmare) under /*Mythology*/ if the citation goes back to the Middle Ages, but under /*Modern folklore*/ if it was from a later folk-tale. Obviously, the new section I tentatively called /*Superstition*/ awaits to be consolidated an merged with the section.

One reason for the split is to avoid being misled into thinking Medieval England and the German alp are just like the Norse alfar, when in fact you cannot safely ascribe attributes like dwelling in Alfheim or occurring in light and dark varieties to them. Some contributor inserted the sentence: 'Middle High German tradition separates the elbe "elves" from getwerc "dwarf", which was especially misleading in that way.

A. Hall's thesis/book is useful for being comprehensive but is obviously iconoclastic; his speculations detract from other commentators, and I am against giving his opinion or his schema for organizing information any WP:UNDUE weight. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that you're going to run into problems with the use of "superstition". This is not a neutral term. What you should be using is something like "folk belief" or more specific terms. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've since continued with my edits, and there is no longer a Superstition section, as I opted to incorporate into Folklore. Having checked up on sources, I found the presentation of information misleading or wrong in many cases, though it would be too onerous for me to log everything I found and corrected in the talk page here. But by way of illustration, I could point out a number of still outstanding issues still the Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore areas, which I didn't tamper with too much.

• I don't feel the mention of "dark elves" need to be repeated in triplicate to drive home the point, and can be deferred to the extant dark elf articles (Dökkálfar and Svartálfar).
• It is incorrect to suggest that the elf appears in Norna-Gests þáttr. I suspect someone just read e.g. Motz, Lotte (1973). "Of Elves and Dwarves" (pdf). Arv:Tidskrift för Nordisk Folkminnesforskning. 29-30.  (p.97) without citing her and came to the wrong conclusion. Olaf THINKS it might be an elf, but turns out to be Norna-gest.
• I don't think it is fair characterization to say Olaf Geirstad-Elf was an elf. You can read snippets of Davidson's summary in her "The Road to Hel," and this Olaf is a draugr if anything.
• Also there should be caveats written about álfablót, as Motz's paper above has done. "Undoubtedly it had one time been intended for the elves, but we do not know to which of their manifestations." She suggests in later times, álf might have only remained in name only, and the in the ritual "figure designated by it" (i.e. elves) , "had become eclipsed" (by e.g. Odin)
• The "Elf-cross" (illustrated by a pentagram in the Scandinavian folklore section) is not strictly Scandinavian, since when look at the drude article, you learn that the "Drudenfuss" or "Drudenkreuz" is pretty much the same thing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Hrafnagaldr Óðins is misquoted as saying "the álfar have skill"; that is not the gist of what it says and is misleadingly to readers. It actually says "elves understand" (Lassen tr. pdf). Grimm, who is supposedly cited here, says so too: ""älfar verstehen", and Stallybrass's translation of Grimm actually concurs as well: "âlfar have skill (understanding)" -- note the parenthesis.
• The quote from Fjölsvinnsmál that states Loki is an elf (álfr) is questionable as well. Grimm used Rask's edition, p.110b, str. 35 "liþski alfr Loki." However, Sophus Bugge's critical edition, p.349, strophe 34 has "Liðskjálfr, Loki". The compound word seems to mean "limb-shiverer" or somesuch.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• File:King Olaf and the Little People.jpg does not belong and needs to be deleted. Firstly, the story is about Olaf the Saint and not Olaf Geirstad-Alf, even though it is mistakenly featured in the article about the latter. Secondly, in the Danish ballad, Hellig-Olavs Væddefart DgF 50 which is the original source, they are not called "elves" but "trolls so small" ("De seyled offuer den Feld saa blaa; vd da løbe de Trolde saa smaa").--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Grimm's tripartite division of elves

I should have announced my intentions earlier, but I had taken out the following passage summarizing Grimm's view, contributed the edit on 10:23, 24 October 2009 by User:Dbachman:

The etymology connecting *alboz with albus "white" suggests an original dichotomy of "white" vs. "black" genii, corresponding to the elves vs. the dwarves which was subsequently confused.¹ Thus the elves proper were named ljósálfar "light elves", contrasting with døckálfar "dark elves".²

which I thought this needed editing. For one "original dichotomy" might conflict with Grimm saying the original alb was a "light, white, good spirit" ("albs mag also ursprünglich einen lichten, weissen, guten geist" (Grimm DM, Bd. 1, S. 413, In English translation "meant first of all" is used instead of "originally"). The other thing is the way the sentences run together, it cane easily be read as if dwarfs and dark elves are the same, but it needed to be clarified that Grimm insisted on the distinction between dwarfs and dark elves, because they are mentioned side-by-side in Hrafnagaldr Óðins (Rask's edition, "Saem 92b"). The block above was moved to the Dökkálfar and Ljósálfar page, and after edits now reads as follows:

Grimm surmised that the Germanic elf was probably a "light-colored, white, good spirit" while the dwarfs may have been conceived as "black spirits" by relative comparison. But the "two classes of creatures were getting confounded" (presumably as the elves were becoming increasingly demonized due to Christianization), and there arose a need to coin the term "light-elf" (ljósálfar) to refer to the "elves proper".^1a(^a Stallybrass's actual phrasing in his translation was "recourse was had to composition, and the elves proper were named liosâlfar" (Vol. 2, p.444) for Grimm's "'half man durch zusammen-setzung und nannte die eigentlichen âlfar liosâlfar." Grimm 1844, Bd. 1, S.413

Well, it used to read the "original elf (German:alb)" but is now --> "Germanic elf". Most of Grimm on the light-elves and black-elves should be moved to the spinoff article, what do you think? I'm not finding any modern scholars who endorse Grimm's tripartite division. Ironically, I was led through Wilkin's article here or here into thinking Tom Shippey may be a supporter, but he absolutely lambasted Grimm, saying of him: "his solution was significantly worse than Grundtvig’s, vague and indecisive." --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Saga section added

In my series of edits on 9 October 2013, much of it was just rearranging the placement of paragraphs by previous editors for organizational purposes. Scholars discuss the "elf" and "elf-sacrifice" (álfablót) mentioned in these sagas in different context from the mythological elf. Hence a new section /*Sagas*/ to house them.

• Olaf Geirstad-Elf - This is in a version of St. Olaf's saga, discussed in Vigfusson & Powell's Corpus Poeticum Boreale under the "Ancestral Worship" section, and by H. R. Ellis Davidson's Road to Hel under "Cult of the Dead" chapter. I have updated the target article somewhat as to this regard.
• The poem Austrfaravísur by Sigvat the Skald is quoted in a version of St. Olaf's saga also. I'm not sure if him being a missionary for the king is quite the correct characterization, that might require fact-checking.
• Norna-Gests þáttr is a tale from the Longest Saga of Olaf Trygvasson (Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta). I edited the article portion in regards to this tale. Norna-gest is mistaken for an elf or an andi "spirit". Cf. Anne Holtsmark's study of the Snorra Edda that explains how the Christian andlengr heaven, thorough association with andi might have led to Snorri's Andlang
• There was reference to Álfheimr (region) which needed reattributing, and it was moved to the saga section. Davidson's lead-in to her quoting the passage from the ThV saga is: "By the time of the Fornaldar Sögur however Álfheim has become a country on the border-line of mythology, as when for example we are told in Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar (I)" (preview p.113). Her inference is, this was a geographical area with a later accretion of legend around it.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Keebler

Keebler Cookie company should get a mention, if for no other reason than to show that Santa isn't the only employer of elves. Also, does Willy Wonka employ elves? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Major Cleanup, May 1st-3rd 2014

May 1st: I'm about to start attempting a major cleanup of this article. I wrote one of the major scholarly studies on this subject, published in 2007: Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity, Anglo-Saxon Studies, 8 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007), currently available at http://www.libgen.net/view.php?id=383363. I've mostly steered clear of this article since then for fear of overemphasising my own work, but hopefully now enough time has elapsed that I can intervene and offer a well balanced cleanup. I have written an entry for a print encyclopedia on the subject, for example ('Elves', in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, ed. by Jeffrey A. Weinstock (forthcoming): http://www.alarichall.org.uk/ashgate_encyclopedia_elves.pdf). If people could bear with me as I work through the article over the next day or two I would be grateful! I'll post an update here when I'm done about what I think might need more work. Alarichall (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. It's good to have you here, Alaric. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloodofox! Alarichall (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Impressive work, Alaric! Haukur (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta! Alarichall (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 3rd: Okay, I'm done! I'll no doubt keep haunting the page a bit finding typos and fiddling about, but for what it's worth, my major cleanup is complete. And the page is down from 73,349 bytes to 66,636 bytes, so although it's still vast, at least it's shorter! Lingering issues:

• I've cited my own book a lot, just because it covers a lot of stuff and I know my way around it, but hopefully not in ways that overemphasise my own arguments, but rather in ways which direct the reader to my summaries of scholarship and debates. I want to come back when I have time and the books handy and put in more references to Shippey 2005, Gunnell 2007, Purkiss 2000, and Jeremy Harte's fairies book. Together these afford a good, up to date set of opinions on the current state of scholarship.
• I'm particularly weak on the medieval German material, so I've relied a lot on Cyril Edwards, ‘Heinrich von Morungen and the Fairy-Mistress Theme’, in Celtic and Germanic Themes in European Literature, ed. by Neil Thomas (Lewiston, N. Y.: Mellen, 1994), pp. 13–30. More learned people might want to check what I did here.
• I didn't attempt a thoroughgoing revision of the modern Scandinavian stuff, which is still a bit of a hotch-potch. Could be worse though!
• There's clearly a case for turning some of the sections here into separate articles and having just one much shorter summary on elves as a launch pad. The Alp section here is probably better in a lot of ways than the main article Alp (folklore). I'd welcome opinions on what would be best to do, but for now I've just left Elf as one mega-entry. Alarichall (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on your major revision here. It's good work. DBaK (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DBaK! I appreciate it. Alarichall (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletions and Reverts by Haldrik

I see that Haldrik (talk · contribs) has come out of the woodwork again and up to his usual pattern. This time he seems to be refactoring sourced text and removing portions at whim and without explanation. Last time we saw him he was around August of 2013, where he was attempting to impose all sorts of "dwarfs are medieval vampires" stuff on the dwarf article. After all sorts of abuse from Haldrik, this eventually got him [blocked for 32 hours] and we saw no more of him. I recommend an administration step in or other users simply revert him when he can't abide by policy. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Haldrik (talk · contribs)! I haven't e-met you before. I've been trying to see what kinds of edits you made to the article and form my own view on how helpful they were, but it's quite hard because you don't provide summaries of the changes you make in the 'edit summary' box. I'd be grateful if you could do this for any future edits so we can work more effectively together. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.222.2 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mrenh Gongveal

I just created a Wiki for Mrenh Gongveal [ Khmer: ម្រេញគង្វាល ]. They are the Elves of Cambodia, and might make an interesting addition to this Elf page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrenh_Gongveal
EarthMonkeyCreative (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No reliable sources for this. Article creator used a self-published book and at least one source that doesn't even mention these. Doug Weller (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091125164734/http://www.northvegr.org:80/lore/viking/001_02.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/viking/001_02.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Scottish 'elves'

As the article notes, by the early modern period an 'elf' is just another word for a fairy, ghost, etc. Scottish sources that talk of 'elves' are written in English, the language of the church and the towns, but they are often just translating some Gaelic term (usually sith). If anything, using Scottish evidence just confuses the topic--though perhaps rightly so. I.e., it tells you about the history of the English word, but not really about the Germanic elf, at least any more than use of 'faun' tells you about the classical concept. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on "Now Agreeed Upon" in the Norse section

I'll be brief: I am having trouble to locate the listed sources for reference point number 23, "For a long time, views about elves in Old Norse mythology were defined by Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda, which talks about svartálfar, dökkálfar and ljósálfar. However, these words are only attested in the Prose Edda and texts based on it, and it is now agreed that they reflect traditions of dwarves, demons, and angels, partly showing Snorri's 'paganisation' of a Christian cosmology learned from the Elucidarius.[23]" - the attested sources are Shippey 2005, 180-81; Hall 2007, 23-26; Gunnell 2007, 127-28; Tolley 2009, I 220 - all of which I am having issues with finding. Could we at least have something quoted from any of these that corroboartes the statement? Particulaury since the line, "The consensus of modern scholarship is that Snorri’s elves are based on angels and demons of Christian cosmology" in the explanations makes it clear that we now have some evidence that this is so - and I would dearly like to see it cited. Hackeru (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)