Talk:Sprite (folklore)

Discussion

This list may need alphabetization. Also, certain points should probably be sub-points (e.g. gnomes may be a type of dwarf). Honestly, I've put a lot of time into getting this much of a list together. Hopefully some kind people will come spruce up the room for me.

Question: Should I lay out general definitions for the beings or leave that to their linking pages?

Also, this is my first discussion post. I hope I did everything okay. Dustinasby

:D hey, youve got a really good page there!

if i were you id leave the definitions to the linking page.#

keep up the good work!!!!

Selphie 08:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well thanks! Yes it is quite big. And moving the big chunks around isn't too easy, but this is the best encylopædia service I've found to date.

In other news: Evidently dwarves are dark elves.

Also gnomes are fairly close cousins to dwarves. I figure, if this were taxonomy/genetics, dwarves and gnomes would probably be of varied genetic clines Dustinasby 10:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

? I thought dark elves were different from dwarves? (dark elves are often called 'Drows' and are generally 'evil' and at war with other elves) maybe im wrong! --Selphie 10:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would be Drow? If you take the Tolkien/D&D elves (tall, slender, beautiful, "evolved" beyond men), then yes, dark elves are Drow. Litterally they are elves with black skin. Often they are the antagonists.

Now if you take a look at the original tales, elves were usually no taller than a prepubesant child. Many of them were far from beautiful (that was the department of several other beings). In many languages "elf" and "fairy" is used almost interchangeably. In our modern world most of us tend to think of Fairies as thimble-sized clear wing'ed humanoids, and when we think of elves it's either beautiful lanky creatures or tiny squat chirstmastime helper (read: brownies). Funny huh? Dustin Asby

its weird how stuff changes over time!

Selphie 14:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) **

-- Hey, this is a good article, but could we get more information or a picture?

~Rébecca

---

Still unsure. I'm still unsure about how I've ranked the subsets. I would like multiple opinions on this. This is the sort of thing people should come to a consensus on. Currently I am thinking it should be more like: Sprite:

Fairy
Pixie ? (is it an elf, fairy, or neither?)
Elf
 Gnome
  Goblin
   Gremlin
  Brownie
  Kobold ? (is it a gnome, dwarf, elf, else?)
  Dwarf
   Leprechaun
 Troll ? (is it a gnome, elf, else?)
  Giant ? (is it a troll? is it a sprite at all?)

"?" denote uncertainty about location. Many sources will call an elf what many others call a farie and what many others call a dwarf. This can be very confusing, and I don't want to come up with my own taxonomy. I think an encyclopaedia should be a consensus driven. Perhaps what I will end up having to do is list them according to how different authors do (and label each according to author).

On other fronts, I'm thinking that I should seperate ghost-like sprites into a different page.

wow! that looks really good, i'd leave it like that, as for what others call them, maybe if you just put a little on a page as needed at the end called "also called" or "mistaken for" or something. this could provide links to other pages which could in turn link back to yours.

Selphie 08:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) **

---

Now I've gone and made a mess. But it actually looks like it's progressing now. I think the == Layout will work much better. And I've succumb to the traditional 4 western elements agenda. Dustin Asby 07:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:) - it looks really good like that, i think it was probably the best way of splitting them into groups. Selphie 07:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) **

To add

I've decided to clean up the main page and put uncatagorized in here.

Polish: Bannik Boginki Djabelek Dogoda Dola Domowije Kikimora Lakanica Leszi Mamuna Mamony Mora Naw Neuri Nocnica Odmience Polewiki Poludnica Psotnik Rarog Rusalki Sky_Women Smierna Spore Strzyga Sudice Tloka Topielce Treasurer/Karzelek Wila Wodjanoj Zors

Mess (misc.): Ballybogs Bogles Dracs (Dracae) Drakes Aluxes Barbegazi Bergleute (Bergmännchen) Pooka (Glashtyn, Phooka, Phouka) Klabauters (Klabautermannikin, Kaboutermannikin) Wichtlein Yarthkins (Böhlers-Männchen, Gwarchells, Karlà, Kaukas, Kepetz, Malienitza, Onnerbänkissen, Querze, Unners-Boes-Töi, Untüeg, Zinselmännchen) Xindhi (Xindha) Alven Bocan Bogounskys Menehune Night Washers (Gollières à Noz, Mille-Lorraines, Villes-Lorraines, Les Lavandières) Thussers (Vardogls) Wilies Xanas Trolls Laminaks

List of species in folklore and mythology

Excerpts from List of species in folklore and mythology by type. Note: this list is very dirty, and the catagories floow no pattern.

Discrepancies

Poltersprites: "Poltersprites – Also a kind of Kobold. These wear grey or red caps that make them invisible. They thing they love the most is to make noise. They are sometimes confused with Poltergeists but these sometimes act with violent intensions but the Poltersprites only want to make noise, nothing more." Youkaimura

Church Grims: "Church Grims or Kyrkogrims – Familiar Dwarfs (sic. read Elves) that live in churches. They are not devout, in fact they hate the Church and the Christian Religion, but that is no excuse to let their home get dirty. They make the bells ring at midnight and anytime anyone dies. Same say that Church Grims are the ghosts of black hounds that were sacrificed and berried in the North part of churches to keep demons at bay." Youkaimura

Pixies: Not sure if they are Air, Water, or Earth. Usually they are in moors, meadows, or woods. Moors are wet ground. Fairies, Gnomes, Nymphs? I'm unsure, but will leave them where they have been placed.

Note: I'm placeing "wood" type elves under Air. It just seems most fitting. That's why you see Dryads there. I made a subsection briefly, but I thought better against it. I did the same for mountain under earth. Until many more elves are added to the list it doesn't matter either way. Dustin Asby 03:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sprite (fantasy): It has ben suggested that "fantasy" is too synonomous with "fake," therefore I propose "Sprite (æthereal)" or "Sprite (ethereal)" for the title. [I suppose "Sprite (æþereal)" is equally valid, but somehow it doesn't seem to follow etymologically]

Sprite (mythology), sprite (folklore) or sprite (legendary creature) would all be more intuitive and would be keeping with the established naming conventions. Sprite (fantasy) suggests that the article is focusing on sprites in fantasy fiction, not folklore. You're never going to get a consensus among your sources as to whether most creatures are or are not subtypes of one another - I'd avoid saying "X is a kind of Y" and instead say "X is usually said to be a kind of Y, but some sources describe it as a Z". -Sean Curtin 02:41, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

The problem with all of those names is that some people believe they exist; calling them fantasy, folklore, lore, mythology, legendary, etc keeps the whole thing from being neutral. ~Sigh~ Good idea with the "usually said to be" part. However, the article could get very huge. One thing I was reading was calling all the earth elves (as I'm resolving to call them) dwarfs, everything was under them. Another website called them all elves. Pooka have been types of goblins, the character Puck (not Puck is a pooka, but Pooka is Puck), fairies, water horses, kobolds, and brownies, and this is all on the same website! It would be such a headache to read through that for each type I think. Dustin Asby 03:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see the point in attempting to categorize these creatures, but it seems important to note that this taxonomy is essentially one of many, not a consensus or definitive breakdown. If anyone's watching this page, let me know what you think, and I'll come back in a week or two to have a crack at it. --Lumin 17:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if "some people" believe creatures from folklore exist. An encyclopedia can't list them as real. It must clearly state they are fictional. This has nothing to do with neutrality, just with factuality. 201.235.51.21 06:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and sources

Just what are the sources for this article? What is called "elves" here (sylphs, gnomes, salamanders and undines) are the elementals of Paracelsus. And a more extensive list of legendary creatures by type can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. According to Merriam-Webster's "sprite" is a synonym derived from Latin spiritus to elfs, fairies and similar beings (just as is pointed out in the article) is there much more to say about this notion?

I have added an "OriginalResearch"-tag. Salleman 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the best thing to do is remove the list unless sources and references can be provided. -Sean Curtin 22:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree; and if someone could manage to conjure up some sources for that list, I would raise, not one, but both eyebrows. Good edit, btw. Salleman 00:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks, and no response. The list is now deleted. Salleman 20:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elemental is a translation of Paracelsus, but modern conceptions of what an elemental is differs to what Paracelsus described. There is no modern English equivalence as the culture has been so heavily influenced by 19th- & especially 20th-Century terms (such as Tolkien's & TSR's usages). "Elf" is just as incorrect as "elemental."

On another note, for the sake of an encyclopedic article, it's good that you cleaned this up in 2005. But for the sake of my own worldbuilding research, I'm glad that cross-cultural list still exists in the article's history, so I'm able to attempt to track down the sources of the info instead of it being lost forever.

I do find it funny there's >6 months between the user (who was obviously new—see the top of the talk page) who made the list's last edit and Salleman making this entry where they seem to be aghast at no response in "almost two weeks."--2604:2D80:DE09:D400:C0D9:3710:8AEA:A82B (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Religion-specific section?

What is the sprite trap section talking about? Is it one of those religion-specific things, because if so it should be specified so that readers don't assume every believer in sprites captures them the same way or whatnot. Perhaps we should acribe the bottling ritual to a specific religion, or at least cite the Web page the ritual was taken from.--Teddywithfangs 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sprites are not evil or bad. In my opinion, they are not mythical. Sprites work hard and help angels. They should be recognized as beings that help us humans everyday. They have received a bad rap in the past. They don't deserve that. user-slick vick

Bad, bad, bad....

This article is very badly written. It's abusing my faith in the wikipedia system. I've added clean-up tags to it in an effort to improve. I don't know enough about the subject to fix what's necessary, but I fixed the spelling errors, at least. I'm going to see if there's a wiki project that might adopt this, but if not, someone fix this using proper references. I don't care if what you believe about the damned things, back up your claims with some sort of outside information, as is WP policy. Good luck, Garnet avi 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

All the "Bad, bad, bad...." unsourced opinions were added by 1 user in the :last few days. I've streamlined a previous version and substituted :it. Still needs proper source attribution, but the egregious stuff based on RPGs and random modern fiction is gone.--4.129.80.112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.129.80.112 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sprite

I feel Im in the presence of one, though it is very secretive in avoiding me, it doesnt call my name nor does it make certain movements that cant be unheard for I hear it, ignoring it is one thing but if I were to compose a trap. How would I be going about that HereticLord 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Heretic777

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

merged

---

The Sprites in popular culture article doesn't have enough info about sprites themselves to make it useful and is not big enough to interfere in any way with this article. Many other articles have the popular culture section attached to the main article.--Beligaronia (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because other articles are stuck like that doesn't mean this one has to be. It was split because it's fundamentally different. Mintrick (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seems to have been reached at Talk:Sprites in popular culture. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Same creature, different time periods. daughter article can't stand alone I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

discussion

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.

Name of article

"Entity" is so general: Everything -- every dog and cat, water sprite, and Sprite soda -- can each be considered an entity. I suggest this article be renamed Sprite (supernatural). That will distinguishes the sprite of this article from all those other things. Ciceronianclausula (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below; however, there may be support for changing the disambiguator on this article, and this close does not preclude any subsequent discussion related to changing the disambiguator. Dekimasuよ! 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

• Sprite (entity) → Sprite
• Sprite → Sprite (disambiguation)

– While the article on the drink gets roughly twice the views, this should still be the primary topic on the criterion of long-term significance. The idea of "Sprites" has been around far longer than the soda, and the soda was named after the mythological concept (see here - it stemmed from an "elf-like boy" used in an ad campaign). It doesn't seem like both of them should be given equal weight. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom (long-term significance). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If neither pageviews nor long-term significance decidedly tips the scale towards one topic or another, we go with disambiguation. Here, both topics can make a strong primarytopic argument based on their respective criterion. Thus, dab is fine. Dohn joe (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The soda having the same long-term significance as the mythological concept is doubtful. An editor has suggested that the long-term significance portion of the two-point naming guideline should be listed first, ahead of page views. This RM seems to highlight that idea further. And the "real" meaning of 'Sprite' (a 'Spirit' or 'Shade') goes with this page, not a soda. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If by "real" meaning you mean original meaning, that doesn't determine a primary topic according to our guidelines. If you mean something else, please explain. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with what he said - while it's not the sole criterion to determine a primary topic, the original meaning of a word can definitely be used as evidence that something should be a primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. In addition to Dohn joe's points I'd like to include Sprite (computer graphics) as another relatively common usage of the term "Sprite". I don't think there's an encyclopedic primary topic here. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly a topic of general knowledge and interest though. I'd surmise that mainly game developers know what a sprite is in the context of video games._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel like sprite (entity) is likewise obscure in modern times, except for those familiar with a lot of fantasy fiction. Maybe that's just true of the United States though? At the same time I would've thought the term "elf" to be more common in Europe. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per long-term significance and being the more appropriate general knowledge topic over a commercial product named for it (page views be damned, see apple vs Apple Inc.). -- Netoholic @ 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, but is it really named after the "entity"? I always thought the name was a play on Spritz (alcoholic beverage). Dekimasuよ! 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

From http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/stories/whats-in-a-name : "A focus group chose this snappy name for the lemon and lime-flavoured drink. Happily, Coca-Cola already owned the legal rights to use the Sprite trademark, thanks to a 1940s advertising campaign that featured an elf-like figure called the Sprite Boy." -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being nit-picky but it seems like that quote explains why Coke already had the trademark, but doesn't directly say why that name was offered to the focus group. It does seem likely that it was because of Sprite Boy, but that quote doesn't actually say it. Not super important for our purposes here though. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neither of the points made in the nom ("been around far longer" and "soda named after [it]") make the entity the primary topic, as suggested by the first two guidelines at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. I think the moderate historical significance of the entity is at best even with the modern dominance of the soda, so it falls well short of the advantage necessary to become primary topic. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The drink should be primary topic per this pageview analysis. The premise of this RM goes directly against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "historical age is not determinative." Nine Zulu queens (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  The main sentence in that link is: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. In the not too distant future most people will probably consider soda some kind of poison, and wonder at the thoughtlessness of their ancestors in drinking it. At that time Sprites will rule the Earth. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  As Randy Kryn said, it ticks off both the criteria of "substantially greater enduring notability" (thousands of years versus about 60) and "educational value" (sprite characters appear in many works of great art and literature, while Sprite the soda has little educational value). While historical age is not determinative, it definitely factors into the determination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  "Educational value" must mean something different than older since the guideline tells us not to use age as a criteria. I take it that educational value is an add on to the guideline, a section motivated by the fear that Hollywood could usurp the names of subjects taught in traditional curricula, for example pi, calculus, or William Shakespeare. The criteria listed in WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, for example traffic statistics and Google web rankings, relate to the question of likely desired destination. No where does the guideline clarify the question of how to determine an article's educational value. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although Sprite (entity) is likely to have the most long-term significance, I don't think it's likely to be so much more significant than all other topics combined that it could be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It isn't enough for a topic to be slightly more significant—it needs to have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", and be "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (these are quotes from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). –IagoQnsi (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• And.......it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move. I feel this to be an awkward collision between "most long-term significance" and "original meaning of the word". It's unlikely that this so-called entity will qualify for the former, and it certainly doesn't qualify as an unambiguous primary topic. ONR (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Long-term significance would favour the entity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dohn joe – not so well known to occupy the primary topic spot, but move to Sprite (mythology) or Sprite (mythological creature) as uncontroversial. "(Entity)" is a quite strange choice that does not usefully distinguish anything – well, everything is an entity, is it not? No such user (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM followup

I WP:BOLDly moved Sprite (entity) to Sprite (mythology). As it requires page mover right, if anyone objects please ask and I'll revert it and open a full RM. No such user (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please revert this article page to Sprite (entity), which was accurate, or move it to Sprite (folklore). In folkloristics, myth is a specific folklore genre that by and large doesn't apply here. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: – moved to Sprite (folklore), with redirects fixed. I'm obviously bothered by that "(entity)" disambig, so if anyone else disagrees... please open a RM. :) No such user (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)