Kobold received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Kofewalt page were merged into Kobold on 27 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article isn't at all organized, isn't formatted normally, and contradicts itself! At the moment, i don't know enough about it to fix it myself. -- Heah 07:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-- GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. To retort the above, none of the articles are long at all; they're already confusing; and Kobold has no disambiguation page. The longest part is probably the least important (the D&D stuff). I think the goblin article maybe has the length and depth to be seperate, but I'm not sure three short articles, without proper links to one another is the right answer. As for the folklore, I do wish someone would flesh out the folklore page. I think it's really interesting. OK, well, then this is still marked for cleanup, and maybe that will take care of it all. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
They're different things. For example, if you're gonna merge into one page every "King Arthur" that people write about, you'd find out that Arthur was actually named "Arthuria" and bore the cogname of "Saber", and everyone knows that there's adedicated space for that kind of information.
Oppose D&D kobolds have been completely divorced from their folklore namesakes since 1st edition, mixing the two in the same article would lengthen the page needlessly and cause confusion. Similarly, games have made enough use of them that a separate page on kobolds in gaming seems to be a defensible proposition. -- Svartalf 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. All they share with the folkloric kobolds are their name. -- Poisonink ( talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article isn't organized well, but I'm not exactly certain where it is contradictory. Other than the fact that Kobolds have evolved to mean different things over time.
As I see it, in brief:
1. Kobold comes from German, and loosely translates as Goblin.
2. Kobolds primarily seem to fill the class of house spirit such as Domovoi in Slavic Folklore. They can be mischevious, or helpful, depending on how they are treated. They also seem to often be the spirit of a child killed in or near the house.
3. Now having been established as a mischevious goblin like creature, Miner's name the metal Cobalt after them, believing that silver has been replaced by "Kobolds" with the more useless metal.
4. Popular fantasy, mostly influenced by DnD, has diverged from the original meaning of Kobold. Different versions of DnD have described them differently. The most recent version has clearly described them as small reptilian humanoids. However, earlier versions have also called them Dog-like, and many people have come to think of them as such. Thus, their appearance in the Suikoden game as a dog race.
5. Neil Gaimen uses them in American Gods in a way that is closer to their original house spirit meaning. However, like much in that book, he twists the meaning. The name seems obviously derived from Heinzelmännchen, but instead of being the spirit of a dead child, it is a spirit that kills children. But then performs it's protective spirit role for the whole town. I can't seem to find any reference to the tribal protective spirit nature of Kobolds, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or anything about the stabbing and wrapping a child.
Ok, so now I know more than I ever expected to about Kobolds. I'm not sure if I'm the one to write the article however...
Best sources I can find is:
Kobold from American Heritage Dictionary
-- Deinol 23:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that fantasy kobolds in D&D suffered a major change from dog like creatures in 2nd edition to lizardfolk in 3rd edition
The section referring to "Small gods" seems to come -completely- out of the blue, and is therefore rather confusing, and certainly sounds completely unsupported. Is this in referrence to Neil Gaiman's book, or folklore of some regional spiritualism/superstition, or is it simply baseless?
Section removed pending some kind of referrence/citation or having it make sense. Here it is:
As far as small gods go, a Kobold is one of the more quaintly created. A kobold is usually the remains of a Teuton/Germanic tribal good-luck-god. These gods were made by raising an infant in an underground hut for five years, never letting it see the sun. Then, on its fifth birthday, it would be dragged up at night, and before the entire tribe be pierced by two blades -- one of bronze, the other of steel. The body would then by held over the flames until dry and brown; the end result would be a small dry fetish which would be carried around and worshipped. When the creature and container were finally destroyed and forgotten, the remains of the god would become a Kobold or a Brownie. They are usually bitter and malicious, a product of their creation and abandonment.
Tchalvak 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I quote from a note in Herbert Hoover's translation of De Re Metallica, in which Hoover quotes from another of Agricola's works, De Animantibus Subterraneis: "Then there are the gentle kind which the Germans as well as the Greeks call cobalos, because they mimic men." Agricola goes on to describe creatures identical to knockers. If we accept this derivation, presumably the term was extended from the (benevolent) knockers to include malicious mine goblins, from whence we get kobolds, cobalt, and so forth. Choess 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose a merger of the three pages:
There's no reason to have three pages covering the same topic. It might be better to have one main article (this one), which branches off into the others if(/as/when) required. At this point, it makes the whole thing a good bit messy. xC | ☎ 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Vehemently oppose. The urge to group together vaguely related subjects that share a name and not much else is unencyclopedic, sloppy, and unprofessional. It makes a mess of Wikipedia and reflects poorly on the ignorant, if well-intentioned, busybodies who propose such things. - Poisonink ( talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The merge suggestion seems to have been soundly rejected. I'm removing the notices. — Dulcem ( talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently rewrote the lead to this article to match the information I found in my studies and which I used to write the article body. In rewriting the lead, I removed some facts that my sources did not back up. If anyone can provide references for this material, it probably belongs somewhere in the article. Here are the facts that were removed:
Thanks for any help! — Dulcem ( talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll jot some notes here: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Another point. I know this is tricky but I got a bit confused as there is some overlap between etymology and characteristics - possibly unavoidable when talking about alternate names etc. I'll get back to it later. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to add this but not sure where to put it or how it disagrees/agrees with what you have:
Book: Arrowsmith N, Morse G (1977). A Field Guide to the Little People. London: Pan Macmillan. pp. pp. 135-37.
ISBN
0-330-25425-1. {{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
Useful?
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 07:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that you don't want to merge the pages, but there should at least be some mention on here of the fact that kobolds are also used in D&D. I would wager that most people searching for kobolds on Wikipedia are looking for the D&D version, or at least, looking for the origin of the D&D version. If nothing else, a "For kobolds as used in Dungeons and Dragons, click here." If no objections and nobody beats me to it, I'll do it later after I'm off work. Applejuicefool ( talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my idea was the hatnote thing, and I guess I should have been less specific: I wasn't advocating singling out D&D, although that's what I said. I'd just like some easily findable mention of gaming kobolds. To be honest, I had scanned the article and completely overlooked the mention of gaming kobolds. It's not that easy or intuitive to find. I'm saying that most of the people coming to this article are going to be looking for RPG kobolds, and there should be at least an easy-to-find link to get them to the right page. Applejuicefool ( talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if some german folk museums have some of these wooden kobolde carvings in them. Not easy for me to get there given I am in Australia... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As discussed at Talk:Hödekin, it appears that the material from Arrowsmith's book on the Hutchen is more appropriate for the kobold article. Here are the bits in question:
To be properly integrated into the article, this paragraph will need to be broken up. Casliber, do you still have the book in question? Could you indicate where the various pieces of info come from? In other words, what comes from p. 249, what from 250, 251, and 252? Thanks for your help with all this. — Dulcem ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As follows: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Described as industrious and loyal, this being works for food once a week and on holidays, in return performing numerous household tasks, = p. 248
...foretelling the future and giving advice and magical gifts. = p. 250
The Hödekin may be forced to leave a household if given clothing, repeatedly insulted, rushed in his work, or if the house is burnt down or a wagon wheel is left in front of it. These actions will anger the house-elf as well, and it will depart, cursing the household. The Hödekin are said to be 0.3-1 m (1-3 ft) tall, with red hair and beard, and clad in red or green clothing and a red hat. Occasionally blind, they are shape-shifters able to transform into children, cats, bats, snakes or roosters. = all p. 250
Three of the images in this article (the ones from The Fairies and the Christmas Child) are up for deletion on Commons. They are clearly PD in the US, but the argument is that they are not PD in the UK, where they were created. Anyone with a Commons account can weigh in here. — Dulcem ( talk) 11:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the book, but in the film adaptation of Communion, Whitley's friend European friend Alex mentions kobolds after Whitley tells of seeing/hallucinating things while on vacation in the New England wilderness. Should this be mentioned in the media section? -- 76.115.67.114 ( talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman, the author of _American Gods_, presents an entirely different meaning for the term "kobold", which would seem to precede the others. I leave it to you to dig up the full implications, as I am tempted to spell it out all too clearly here. TheLastWordSword ( talk) 01:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I really wonder about the wording in this section becasue the current state of research in German ethnology is that actually no evidence for survival of pagan beliefs in Chistianity exists. All former evidence are either based on pure linguistic research working with suspected but not provable prehistoric sources of words or are based in the so-called mythologic school of folklore which did not work with evidence but purely on possibility. The tenor is, that there is no possible way of tracing any belief or custom further back than medieval times - or Roman times in special cases - but never to pre-christian Germanic times since there is no written evidence of or about Germanic religious practices. Especially important on this topic is Hans Mosers work, but most other ethnologists after WWII wrote something about this subject. -- 188.195.34.163 ( talk) 15:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I recommend Palgrave's Witchcraft Historiography as a debunking of the 'Paganism survived past the Christianization of Europe' theory. It is certainly not 'total nonsense.' Akwia ( talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
To my knowledge as having grown up with German Children's books, Heinzelmann is a generic term, not an individual name. I've never come across a single elf called Heinzelmann in any book. They are not exactly kobolds, but benevolent dwarfs who help in the house, while a kobold is mischievous. The name Heinz-el-mann seems to be a taboo term, Heinz being a nickname for Henry, -el- a diminuitive, and Mann = man, so it means “Lil' Henry man”.
Quite famous in Germany is the ballad of the Lil' Henry men of Cologne (Die Heinzelmännchen von Köln), put into verse by August Kopisch. The story goes that nobody used to work in Cologne because the lil' Henry men did all the work at night. But the tailor's wife wanted to see them. So she spread peas on the staircase and hid herself there. When the lil' Henry men slipped and fell, the tailor's wife laughed at them. This made the Henry men so angry that they left the city, and the people had to work themselves.
So while a Kobold is held responsible if you have lost something in the house, or if you keep stumbling somewhere, or if your cat is scared for no good reason, a Heinzelmann is quite the same as the nisses and tomtes of Scandinavia, except that they have nothing to do with Christmas. -- Curryfranke ( talk) 10:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
How can something be derived from German folklore AFTER its spread through Europe?It's quite poorly written, but I'll leave the correction to someone familiar with the facts, which I am not. Just English. 67.240.185.14 ( talk) 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Kobold received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Kofewalt page were merged into Kobold on 27 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article isn't at all organized, isn't formatted normally, and contradicts itself! At the moment, i don't know enough about it to fix it myself. -- Heah 07:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-- GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 03:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. To retort the above, none of the articles are long at all; they're already confusing; and Kobold has no disambiguation page. The longest part is probably the least important (the D&D stuff). I think the goblin article maybe has the length and depth to be seperate, but I'm not sure three short articles, without proper links to one another is the right answer. As for the folklore, I do wish someone would flesh out the folklore page. I think it's really interesting. OK, well, then this is still marked for cleanup, and maybe that will take care of it all. GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
They're different things. For example, if you're gonna merge into one page every "King Arthur" that people write about, you'd find out that Arthur was actually named "Arthuria" and bore the cogname of "Saber", and everyone knows that there's adedicated space for that kind of information.
Oppose D&D kobolds have been completely divorced from their folklore namesakes since 1st edition, mixing the two in the same article would lengthen the page needlessly and cause confusion. Similarly, games have made enough use of them that a separate page on kobolds in gaming seems to be a defensible proposition. -- Svartalf 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. All they share with the folkloric kobolds are their name. -- Poisonink ( talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article isn't organized well, but I'm not exactly certain where it is contradictory. Other than the fact that Kobolds have evolved to mean different things over time.
As I see it, in brief:
1. Kobold comes from German, and loosely translates as Goblin.
2. Kobolds primarily seem to fill the class of house spirit such as Domovoi in Slavic Folklore. They can be mischevious, or helpful, depending on how they are treated. They also seem to often be the spirit of a child killed in or near the house.
3. Now having been established as a mischevious goblin like creature, Miner's name the metal Cobalt after them, believing that silver has been replaced by "Kobolds" with the more useless metal.
4. Popular fantasy, mostly influenced by DnD, has diverged from the original meaning of Kobold. Different versions of DnD have described them differently. The most recent version has clearly described them as small reptilian humanoids. However, earlier versions have also called them Dog-like, and many people have come to think of them as such. Thus, their appearance in the Suikoden game as a dog race.
5. Neil Gaimen uses them in American Gods in a way that is closer to their original house spirit meaning. However, like much in that book, he twists the meaning. The name seems obviously derived from Heinzelmännchen, but instead of being the spirit of a dead child, it is a spirit that kills children. But then performs it's protective spirit role for the whole town. I can't seem to find any reference to the tribal protective spirit nature of Kobolds, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or anything about the stabbing and wrapping a child.
Ok, so now I know more than I ever expected to about Kobolds. I'm not sure if I'm the one to write the article however...
Best sources I can find is:
Kobold from American Heritage Dictionary
-- Deinol 23:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that fantasy kobolds in D&D suffered a major change from dog like creatures in 2nd edition to lizardfolk in 3rd edition
The section referring to "Small gods" seems to come -completely- out of the blue, and is therefore rather confusing, and certainly sounds completely unsupported. Is this in referrence to Neil Gaiman's book, or folklore of some regional spiritualism/superstition, or is it simply baseless?
Section removed pending some kind of referrence/citation or having it make sense. Here it is:
As far as small gods go, a Kobold is one of the more quaintly created. A kobold is usually the remains of a Teuton/Germanic tribal good-luck-god. These gods were made by raising an infant in an underground hut for five years, never letting it see the sun. Then, on its fifth birthday, it would be dragged up at night, and before the entire tribe be pierced by two blades -- one of bronze, the other of steel. The body would then by held over the flames until dry and brown; the end result would be a small dry fetish which would be carried around and worshipped. When the creature and container were finally destroyed and forgotten, the remains of the god would become a Kobold or a Brownie. They are usually bitter and malicious, a product of their creation and abandonment.
Tchalvak 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I quote from a note in Herbert Hoover's translation of De Re Metallica, in which Hoover quotes from another of Agricola's works, De Animantibus Subterraneis: "Then there are the gentle kind which the Germans as well as the Greeks call cobalos, because they mimic men." Agricola goes on to describe creatures identical to knockers. If we accept this derivation, presumably the term was extended from the (benevolent) knockers to include malicious mine goblins, from whence we get kobolds, cobalt, and so forth. Choess 05:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose a merger of the three pages:
There's no reason to have three pages covering the same topic. It might be better to have one main article (this one), which branches off into the others if(/as/when) required. At this point, it makes the whole thing a good bit messy. xC | ☎ 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Vehemently oppose. The urge to group together vaguely related subjects that share a name and not much else is unencyclopedic, sloppy, and unprofessional. It makes a mess of Wikipedia and reflects poorly on the ignorant, if well-intentioned, busybodies who propose such things. - Poisonink ( talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The merge suggestion seems to have been soundly rejected. I'm removing the notices. — Dulcem ( talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently rewrote the lead to this article to match the information I found in my studies and which I used to write the article body. In rewriting the lead, I removed some facts that my sources did not back up. If anyone can provide references for this material, it probably belongs somewhere in the article. Here are the facts that were removed:
Thanks for any help! — Dulcem ( talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll jot some notes here: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Another point. I know this is tricky but I got a bit confused as there is some overlap between etymology and characteristics - possibly unavoidable when talking about alternate names etc. I'll get back to it later. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to add this but not sure where to put it or how it disagrees/agrees with what you have:
Book: Arrowsmith N, Morse G (1977). A Field Guide to the Little People. London: Pan Macmillan. pp. pp. 135-37.
ISBN
0-330-25425-1. {{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
Useful?
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 07:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that you don't want to merge the pages, but there should at least be some mention on here of the fact that kobolds are also used in D&D. I would wager that most people searching for kobolds on Wikipedia are looking for the D&D version, or at least, looking for the origin of the D&D version. If nothing else, a "For kobolds as used in Dungeons and Dragons, click here." If no objections and nobody beats me to it, I'll do it later after I'm off work. Applejuicefool ( talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my idea was the hatnote thing, and I guess I should have been less specific: I wasn't advocating singling out D&D, although that's what I said. I'd just like some easily findable mention of gaming kobolds. To be honest, I had scanned the article and completely overlooked the mention of gaming kobolds. It's not that easy or intuitive to find. I'm saying that most of the people coming to this article are going to be looking for RPG kobolds, and there should be at least an easy-to-find link to get them to the right page. Applejuicefool ( talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if some german folk museums have some of these wooden kobolde carvings in them. Not easy for me to get there given I am in Australia... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As discussed at Talk:Hödekin, it appears that the material from Arrowsmith's book on the Hutchen is more appropriate for the kobold article. Here are the bits in question:
To be properly integrated into the article, this paragraph will need to be broken up. Casliber, do you still have the book in question? Could you indicate where the various pieces of info come from? In other words, what comes from p. 249, what from 250, 251, and 252? Thanks for your help with all this. — Dulcem ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As follows: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Described as industrious and loyal, this being works for food once a week and on holidays, in return performing numerous household tasks, = p. 248
...foretelling the future and giving advice and magical gifts. = p. 250
The Hödekin may be forced to leave a household if given clothing, repeatedly insulted, rushed in his work, or if the house is burnt down or a wagon wheel is left in front of it. These actions will anger the house-elf as well, and it will depart, cursing the household. The Hödekin are said to be 0.3-1 m (1-3 ft) tall, with red hair and beard, and clad in red or green clothing and a red hat. Occasionally blind, they are shape-shifters able to transform into children, cats, bats, snakes or roosters. = all p. 250
Three of the images in this article (the ones from The Fairies and the Christmas Child) are up for deletion on Commons. They are clearly PD in the US, but the argument is that they are not PD in the UK, where they were created. Anyone with a Commons account can weigh in here. — Dulcem ( talk) 11:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the book, but in the film adaptation of Communion, Whitley's friend European friend Alex mentions kobolds after Whitley tells of seeing/hallucinating things while on vacation in the New England wilderness. Should this be mentioned in the media section? -- 76.115.67.114 ( talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman, the author of _American Gods_, presents an entirely different meaning for the term "kobold", which would seem to precede the others. I leave it to you to dig up the full implications, as I am tempted to spell it out all too clearly here. TheLastWordSword ( talk) 01:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I really wonder about the wording in this section becasue the current state of research in German ethnology is that actually no evidence for survival of pagan beliefs in Chistianity exists. All former evidence are either based on pure linguistic research working with suspected but not provable prehistoric sources of words or are based in the so-called mythologic school of folklore which did not work with evidence but purely on possibility. The tenor is, that there is no possible way of tracing any belief or custom further back than medieval times - or Roman times in special cases - but never to pre-christian Germanic times since there is no written evidence of or about Germanic religious practices. Especially important on this topic is Hans Mosers work, but most other ethnologists after WWII wrote something about this subject. -- 188.195.34.163 ( talk) 15:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I recommend Palgrave's Witchcraft Historiography as a debunking of the 'Paganism survived past the Christianization of Europe' theory. It is certainly not 'total nonsense.' Akwia ( talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
To my knowledge as having grown up with German Children's books, Heinzelmann is a generic term, not an individual name. I've never come across a single elf called Heinzelmann in any book. They are not exactly kobolds, but benevolent dwarfs who help in the house, while a kobold is mischievous. The name Heinz-el-mann seems to be a taboo term, Heinz being a nickname for Henry, -el- a diminuitive, and Mann = man, so it means “Lil' Henry man”.
Quite famous in Germany is the ballad of the Lil' Henry men of Cologne (Die Heinzelmännchen von Köln), put into verse by August Kopisch. The story goes that nobody used to work in Cologne because the lil' Henry men did all the work at night. But the tailor's wife wanted to see them. So she spread peas on the staircase and hid herself there. When the lil' Henry men slipped and fell, the tailor's wife laughed at them. This made the Henry men so angry that they left the city, and the people had to work themselves.
So while a Kobold is held responsible if you have lost something in the house, or if you keep stumbling somewhere, or if your cat is scared for no good reason, a Heinzelmann is quite the same as the nisses and tomtes of Scandinavia, except that they have nothing to do with Christmas. -- Curryfranke ( talk) 10:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
How can something be derived from German folklore AFTER its spread through Europe?It's quite poorly written, but I'll leave the correction to someone familiar with the facts, which I am not. Just English. 67.240.185.14 ( talk) 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)