Untitled

edit

oppose merger. This term has a specific meaning used in literature for a type of creature and in horror and fantasy genres. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Word has Indoeuropean origin. Sanscrit vira. Latin vir. But it has survived only in modern Baltic languages: Lithuanian vyras, Latvian vīrs. --Profesoriux (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Other version (from warg - "someone outside the ‘world’, a socially deviant outsider; more specifically, a criminal and an outcast"), see Blécourt W. de. The Differentiated Werewolf: An Introduction to Cluster Methodology // Werewolf Histories / Ed. by W. de Blécourt. — Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. — P. 2. — 280 p. — (Palgrave Historical Studies in Witchcraft and Magic). — ISBN 1137526343, ISBN 9781137526342 --Бериллий (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Existence of "wer(e)man"

edit

Are there any sources for the existence of "wer(e)man"? I've been unable to find any, and from the looks of it the word never existed at all in Old English, at least not with this sense. Lingvulo (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, there is no legitimate source that uses "werman". It appears to be based on the term "wifmann" applied to males. Going by other sources, Anglo-Saxons either used just "mann" to refer to male humans or used "wæpnedmann" to specify a male human. I've already removed it, and it appears this page is in need of some cleanup. Auzewasright (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
edit

I have a few remarks to this article, but English is not my first language and I'm not well versed in the topic of shapeshifters. While I wouldn't want to change/delete those links on my own, somebody with a deeper understanding of this material might want to look into it:

  • Weregild seems unrelated to shapeshifters, unless the user who added it was referring to the Beowulf poem. In which case it should rather link to Beowulf.
  • Also: The Mannaz article seems to be missing what made this page's authors originally refer to that page. Maybe it was removed or maybe they forgot to add it themselves.

Thank you for your time and/or assistance. --80.141.74.84 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 1 January 2024

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Little support for the first move. Regarding the second, the discussion seemed pretty evenly divided about what the primary topic was. Overall no consensus to move. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply


– (other dab modifier suggestions welcome) Sure, this is part of the etymology of werewolf, but I can't imagine this is the primary topic readers expect to see at this title. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Since the eight-sentence stub under main header "Were" appears to delineate almost exclusively the "archaic terms for adult male humans", rather than "were" as a verb, I would support WereWere (archaic term) or, in dispensing with the parenthetical qualifier, WereWere and wer, per Hameltion. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with either of those. -- King of ♥ 19:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ: @Necrothesp: any objections to using "were and wer" as the title while keeping the primary redirect? --Joy (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think anyone would support that. Those of us supporters do not think that this is the primary topic of Were. And if I were to ignore the primary topic debate, I would say that Were is a better title than Were and wer; the sole reason to disambiguate is because it is not the primary topic. -- King of ♥ 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@King of Hearts I was trying to build some form of consensus here because as it stands we're just not going to do anything :) --Joy (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
But I think you're missing the point of the debate, which is over whether the archaic term is the primary topic of Were. I think all of us agree that Were is a better title than Were and wer in a vacuum (ASTONISH is not an objection over the choice of title; it is very much a PTOPIC objection, since if no other topics called "Were" existed, we would not be ASTONISHed). But if it is not the primary topic, then it is simply not allowed to be at Were. So continuing to treat it as the primary topic while moving it to Were and wer accomplishes nothing. -- King of ♥ 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking back at this, I'm not really sure where I pulled "were and wer" out of ... they're the same word. I think I was thinking of wer and wif. My new suggestion is Wer (Old English), per some sources. Sorry to make a confusing discussion. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, it does actually accomplish something - it allows us to use the existing usage statistics tools to measure whether readers are astonished or not when arriving there. --Joy (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2024 (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.