Talk:Thor/Archive 2

This has been deleted twice now from the section "Modern influence":

The 2011 New Zealand TV series The Almighty Johnsons features reincarnated Norse gods in modern times, including Thor who is a goat farmer.^[1]

First time the excuse was "Removed seemingly very minor pop culture reference with no citation provided", even though the linked article did indeed include all the cites you could want. So I added a direct cite in the text, redundant though it was. Then it was deleted with the remark "minor pop culture mention. We don't mention every time Thor is reference in modern popular culture here". Oh really, "we" don't? The section is "Modern influence" (not "Modern influence in high culture"). How a current TV show about Norse gods is not appropriate under that heading, but the logo of a bicycle is, I don't know. Barsoomian (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thor is a major deity; there have been scads of books, animated series, etc. concerning the Norse gods, particularly the trope of them appearing in a modern context (Neil Gaiman's American Gods comes to mind in particular) but also in the context of the Vikings (Harry Harrison's The Hammer and the Cross comes to mind in particular). All of these, and the TV series you mention, feature all the Norse gods, or at any rate several, so naturally they feature Thor—but only because he's a prominent member of the Æsir. In my opinion that's the best reason not to add them to the articles on all the individual deities they mention; and note that there are no such mentions in the Thor article, only modern references to Thor in particular. In other words I agree with you that Thor should be linked in the article on The Almighty Johnsons, but I don't think it's useful to link to The Almighty Johnsons from the Thor article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall Thor being in American Gods at all. (Maybe he was, I read it a couple of years ago.) The main characters in that were Baldur (though he wasn't named) and Odin. However, Thor is prominent in at least one episode of Almighty Johnsons, the one that I cited. It is a "modern reference to Thor in particular" as you said was your criterion. You have not given any reason for this to be omitted. You include a bicycle logo, surely trivial, you include obscure 19th C poems. A TV show (that got good reviews) is omitted, because it's "pop culture". It's to the detriment of the article to ignore how the legends have been adapted in modern times. For you to on the one hand say "there have been scads of books..." and then decide "we" are not going to mention any of them seems to be based on a fear of the article being seen as not as "serious" as you would like it to be. I'll also note that there have been several recent movies, not just the Marvel one this year, about Thor, also completely ignored. Since most of these appear to be just trying to cash in on the Marvel movie, I don't care to advocate them, though if someone did the legwork and cited them I would never have deleted them myself. (Thunderstorm: The Return of Thor (2011), Hammer of the Gods (2009) , Thor: Tales of Asgard (2011), etc.) Anyway, seeing as you and Bloodofox are united on this, it doesn't matter what I say, you will just revert me. So good luck with keeping your article free from pollution from that awful pop culture. Barsoomian (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I liked the Marvel Thor until Walt Simonson came along . . . but that has its own article. Have a look there to see whether all the movies are covered. You seem to have missed my point (and also that the bicycle logo is only in a picture caption). The poems may be obscure to you, but isn't that just as judgmental as the dislike of modern popular culture you're putting into my mouth? I've given you a better reason than "trivial." Yngvadottir (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have missed your point. What was it? As for the movies, most of them aren't based on the comic. So they're not listed on Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media, and you won't mention them here, despite them featuring Thor as the main character. As for the poems, I'm not trying to delete them, I'm asking why they (and a bicycle logo -- a photo is a much more prominent reference than text) are more worthy of inclusion than a TV show or a movie. You're the one making that "judgement". And yes, Marvel's Thor has its own article, which is linked. But you refuse to consider a one sentence mention and link to The Almighty Johnsons. The "pop culture" reference is from Bloodofox's disparaging edit comments, since you are backing him up I assumed you shared his reasoning, apologies if not. Barsoomian (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Bloodofox and I are not joined at the hip. My reasoning appears above: the TV series is one example among many that are about the Norse gods in general, and only incidentally Thor. (By the way, there may be more instances of that than you think; I know of 2 webcomix alone, and then there are all the gaming uses. If there isn't a Norse gods in popular culture article, maybe there should be, although it might have to be referenced mostly with articles about the animé and manga uses.) I disagree about the picture constituting undue prominence, but will now remove the Wagner reference, which is incidental, now that I come to look at it. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"only incidentally " What does that mean? I've actually watched the show in question, and Thor (aka Derrick), is not incidental:

Thus it is that there is the first face-to-face summit meeting of Gods and Goddesses, outside the church where Selma’s funeral is being held. May the best deity win, is the general consensus, as the two sides set about following any signs of the Frigg being here. Instead who they find is Thor, God of War, in the form of Derrick, a goat farmer.
This is a problem for both sides, because Thor is clearly barking mad – and also very scary, with his hammer in his hand. But Thor is thrilled to find Odin/Axl is in his house and announces that their search is over because his daughter, Delphine, is, in fact, Frigg. This, in turn, is a problem for Axl because Delphine is definitely not the woman he had in mind as his soul-mate forever.
Thor ousts the rest of the Gods/Goddesses so that he may spend time with Odin – and so that Axl can get it on with Delphine. This leaves Anders free to kindle a relationship with Michele; and for Olaf and Ingrid, the Goddess Oracle, to bond over vodka and a spa pool.This leaves Axl alone, on the farm, to incur the wrath of Thor, after Axl realises Delphine is not Frigg. Thor does not take the news well and it takes Anders on a rescue mission, plus Axl growing some Odin-like balls, for them to get out of there alive.

Now, that this show clearly has fun with the juxtaposition of Norse Gods in rural New Zealand (though it isn't as farcical as the recap may make it sound), doesn't change the fact that they are directly based on, and reference, the original legends and the characteristics of the gods. Thor included, not incidentally, as above. And this are entirely appropriate for inclusion here, despite not being "high culture". Barsoomian (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yngvadottir on this one. A show using a Thor based character is not notable just for that reason. The character appeared in one episode, that's it. Being a minor character that appeared only once on a show isn't notable, and an episode recap isn't a reliable third-party source that shows the notability of the information it is supporting. - SudoGhost 17:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really? Not notable? Let's look at one of the cites you're happy with then. "He also features in two works by Rudyard Kipling: Letters of Travel: 1892-1913" Text here. One paragraph mentioning Thor. In its entirety:

I had some talk with a youngish man whose business it was to train avalanches to jump clear of his section of the track. Thor went to Jotunheim only once or twice, and he had his useful hammer Miolnr with him. This Thor lived in Jotunheim among the green-ice-crowned peaks of the Selkirks--where if you disturb the giants at certain seasons of the year, by making noises, they will sit upon you and all your fine emotions. So Thor watches them glaring under the May sun, or dull and doubly dangerous beneath the spring rains. He wards off their strokes with enormous brattices of wood, wing-walls of logs bolted together, and such other contraptions as experience teaches. He bears the giants no malice; they do their work, he his. What bothers him a little is that the wind of their blows sometimes rips pines out of the opposite hill-sides--explodes, as it were, a whole valley. He thinks, however, he can fix things so as to split large avalanches into little ones.

This is "notable"? the other Kipling ref is a fairy tale that mentions Thor a few times, but he certainly isn't a major character. Barsoomian (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I further agree with Yngvadottir. Further, the old (Frølich-based) bicycle badge is a perfectly good (and perfectly copyright-free) example of Thor's employment in modern popular culture. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then. TV isn't allowed to be mentioned here. And not a word about any of the several Thor movies to be found. So obviously I misunderstood "Modern influence", perhaps you should clarify that by this you mean "Reverential pre-1920 influences", and avoid all that low-brow "pop culture" (except bicycles). Looking at your "Modern influences" the only actual "modern" work mentioned is the Marvel comic, which even you could not exclude, though I'm sure it pains you to give it even the one sentence it has. Very comprehensive indeed. You could almost call it encyclopedic. Barsoomian (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You've given no reason as to why a brief, minor character in a small television show is notable enough to be included in that section. Grouping several different modern "Thors" together and attempting to make an "all or nothing" case for them doesn't change that. It is not for us to decide whether a particular instance is notable enough, but rather to judge each mention by the sources that back it up. In this instance, even if the television show was a major cultural influence (which it is not), the minor Thor character that appeared once isn't notable enough to be mentioned here. - SudoGhost 07:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You have rejected any mention of TV or films on this page. Trivial mention in any "classic" literature are featured. Your criteria are inconsistently applied to exclude works that you don't want to see here. As for the TV show, it's true that Thor does not appear in every episode of the series. HOWEVER in the 50 minute episode mentioned, he is a major character, and THAT episode is the work cited. And you have no justification at all for excluding any of the several Thor films, though a big deal is made about a one paragraph mention in a Kipling story. It's hard to see any rule other than "reverential literature only". Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think your own bias is showing in your reading of "Cold Iron." If the TV show becomes a big hit and the "Thor" character becomes major, it will be another matter. If someone finds an animé/manga/webcomic/TV show that's successful (the standard for the cartoon ones is higher) and is substantially about Thor (those I know of aren't, they're about the Norse gods in general or in one case, primarily about Loki), it'll be a different matter. The movies, so far as I'm aware, are all based on (or spoofs of) the Marvel comic. As I suggested above, it may be time (read: enough articles to be found in reputable places) for an article on Norse gods in popular culture. I believe it's the absence of such an article that is really causing the problem you perceive. With the exception of Marvel, there really hasn't been a particular focus on Thor in pop culture since WW2. And it's particular focus on Thor that's required here.--Yngvadottir (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it has to be a "big hit"? Where did that criterion come from? Not one of the "Modern influences" listed is a "big hit", except perhaps the Thor comic. The movies ARE NOT all based on the Marvel comic. You haven't even looked them up, obviously. And how does that rule them out anyway? As for Kipling, the "one paragraph" is Letters of Travel: 1892-1913, not "Cold Iron". But the Thor mention in "Cold Iron" is pretty minor as well. What "bias" do I reveal by reading the texts and pointing it out?

The modern interpretations of Thor in various media could be listed and described in a couple of paragraphs. It would not detract from the classical section. See for example Odysseus#Modern for a respectable article about a mythical hero that isn't above mentioning modern adaptations. Barsoomian (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Cold Iron" gives Thor a major role—a sad one, but the story features Thor prominently. I imagine the uses of Odysseus are all similarly about Odysseus, not Greco-Roman heroes in general—particularly since his story is almost all about his trip home, rather than his participation in the Trojan War. That's my point. As for a major hit—to justify mentioning it outside its own article. You've said it's only in its first season. I'm sorry it's still not clear that it's not about whether something is pre-war or "high culture," but I do not think this TV show is yet significant enough as a modern depiction of Thor to be listed as such in this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Major hit" is a bogus criterion. None of the other media mentioned are "major hits". You just keep making up new reasons to exclude things you don't like (despite disdaining to find out anything about them). It DOES NOT MATTER about the series as a whole, (though it has been renewed for next year). I am citing the specific episode where Thor is a MAJOR character. Could I delete " Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger's 1807 epic poem" because all his other poems were not about Thor? That's the argument you are making. And I'm pretty sure more people have seen that episode than have read that poem, but you only use that rule to exclude "pop culture", of course. Barsoomian (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no, that's an obviously false analogy (even more so than your analogy between Odysseus and Thor). t's already apparent that you have a bias against anything older than, say, World War II— you dismiss the Kipling story as a "fairytale" and you don't like Oehlenschläger's epic poem because few people today have read it. Notability doesn't expire—fortunately, because until Lee and Kirby, Thor had been unfortunately neglected since the war. I really encourage you to put together that broadbased article on the Norse gods in modern culture; there are a large number of them that don't have individual articles, and I'm sure there are enough reliable sources discussing the phenomenon by now. And that's the context of the TV show, unless and until its treatment of Thor rises to significance for Thor in modern culture. However, it's becoming apparent that you consider it simply a matter of taste. I have repeated several times now the grounds on which I believe the show is inappropriate to mention in the Thor article at this stage. I have not done so by calling the show trivial or insulting your taste, and I would thank you to stop doing so for my position. Let me point out that I removed the mention of Wagner's Ring cycle from the article on precisely those grounds—much though I personally cherish it, it doesn't meet that standard even though Simek mentions it.--Yngvadottir (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made a whole list of incorrect and unfounded statements about me and "my beliefs".

• "It's already apparent that you have a bias against anything older than, say, World War II": No, I am pointing out though that you have systematically excluded almost everything after that date.
• "you dismiss the Kipling story as a "fairytale" " -- Where do I "dismiss" it? It certainly is a fairy tale, the collection it's in is is titled Rewards and Fairies. How is it relevant to anything whether it is or isn't? I do "dismiss" the relevance of Kipling's Letters of Travel, as the only mention of Thor is one paragraph, which I quoted above.
• "and you don't like Oehlenschläger's epic poem because few people today have read it." Bullshit, and offensive. One of the many criteria demanded here to include a TV show was that it be "a major hit". I was pointing out that few if any of the other media listed could claim that, the poems in particular. But I haven't read it and have no opinion, like or dislike, about it. And I haven't advocated it be deleted on any grounds. Just again pointing out the inconsistency of this position.
• "I really encourage you to put together that broadbased article on the Norse gods in modern culture", or in other words: "go away, don't touch my article". I have not the time, inclination or ability to create such a broadbased article. The sensible thing to do would be to enlarge the section here, and if it eventually grew to a respectable size it could be split off. As has happened with for example Robin Hood in popular culture. The Odysseus article I mentoned earlier is probably ripe for having its correspondng section hived off.
• "I have not done so by calling the show trivial or insulting your taste," Perhaps not you personally, but others here have. See the dismissive edit comments when my text was deleted. But if you really don't think it's trivial, then you have no reason to exclude it. But you do. So I'm left wondering just what the real reason is. As for Wagner, well done. Now look at the Kipling travelogue and see if you can justify keeping that for three mentions of "Thor" in one paragraph while rejecting a whole 50 minute TV show. Barsoomian (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made my position clear enough: it rests on relevance to this article. Your personal feeling that a 50-minute TV show is more notable than an epic poem just because you prefer TV shows is not relevant to notability. Nor is your assumption that Odysseus is analagous to Thor because he is a "mythological hero" (despite the crucial point I have repeated again and again, that in the TV show, and the vast majority of other modern mentions, Thor appears simply as part of the ensemble of Norse deities, for which there is no analogue in the Odysseus story—and for that matter Thor is a major god, not a "hero" who cannot be arsed to get home to his wife) or that a literary work is unimpressive because it has "Fairies" in the title. No, I haven't called the show trivial. (I have also gently pointed out that I am not a sock or a meatpuppet of Bloodofox, and once should be enough for that statement). I have patiently explained the applicable criteria as I see them. By searching for the webomics I know of, I found that the general article does in fact exist: Norse mythology in popular culture. The Almighty Johnsons is already listed there. Who knows, maybe it will become a big hit—big enough to be as significant as Kipling or Oehlenschläger in this context—and the "Thor" character in it will turn out in the meantime to be a major character in the ensemble. Should both of those happen, I, for one, will revisit the issue. But right now, in my considered judgment, it's no more relevant to the Thor article than is the fact that The Hammer and the Cross has scenes in which Thor appears—that's a notable trilogy but its mentions of Thor are only incidental, despite the fact that a major character is a priest of Thor. To name one other example in modern culture for which we have an article. Or maybe some academic will write about either of them as an example of modern attitudes toward Thor. But in teh current situation I am sorry to say that I am beginning to think you are taking my politeness and willingness to explain my position for weakness. If my reasoning is still so unclear that you think it amounts to bias against modern stuff, please re-read. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"just because you prefer TV shows " Again, you misrepresent me. Where do you get that from? And the rest: I was not attacking the things currently in the article but trying to compare the significance of these and deduce the criteria that allows them and not other things. The response to that is to simply defend the worth of the items I mention, not to compare them, and declare that I have "a bias against anything older than, say, World War II", that I "prefer TV shows". No. I simply was trying to make the article comprehensive, filling in missing facts, not imposing my own prejudices on it. The high barriers you put against the inclusion of anything I suggest are not applied to the items you want to include. Your "considered judgment" is that even one paragraph by Kipling is significant, but a TV show cannot be. Unlike you, I won't go ahead to make assertions about why you might think that.Barsoomian (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Barsoomian, your proposed addition has been rejected by three different editors, all expressing the same reasoning. Perhaps it's time to ask yourself if your time spent on this issue is being spent productively. Further, I should note that Yngvadottir is being remarkably patient and tolerant here here, and you would do well to show her a little more respect. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about "respect" after your dismissive remarks. I don't ask for "tolerance". I am not a supplicant. But I know when I'm outnumbered. Pat yourself on the back to have seen off another Philistine. Barsoomian (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox claims that an Infobox is unhelpful and misleading. Yet doesn't take it to the talk section and makes no case except his opinion. The infobox is directly from the article as I point out. Bloodofox retorts: "This is a gross simplification and adds nothing. If you have a case for this, please take it to the talk page. There is no need for this infobox." Infoboxes are standard for encyclopedia, this is the Wiki(encyclo)pedia. All info in the infobox is in the article. While it might be a gross simplification, some readers are look for this simiple info with out wading through the whole article. Instead you wish to force them to read the whole article, instead they will stop reading and not get any info out of the article. You have not made your case. Are you are or you not working on an encyclopedia, Bloodofox? --Spshu (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: I referred you to the talk page to state your reasoning. Anyway, there's nothing that an info box can do that the opening paragraphs don't do here better. The info boxes do nothing more than mislead the reader and clutter the article. :bloodofox: (talk)

Wikipedia articles are structured such that there is an initial summary at the top - this enables people to get the most important information without reading through the whole article. Infoboxes can sometimes be a useful addition to this but I'm not sure that is the case here. If there were to be an infobox for Thor I don't think his family relationship would necessarily be the most pertinent thing for them. Haukur (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, but less strenuously - when the infobox appeared, I looked at Odin to see whether it had one and noted that it did but that it was similarly simplistic. The infoboxes seem to be based on a rather simplistic view of deities: that they have only one name, one to three things they are "gods of," and one world they - live in? Thor's the Protector of Mankind or of Midgard, the Patron of Travelers, Redbeard, Ása-Þórr - in fact in the Germanic pantheon, the number of sobriquets and alternate names is a good clue to importance. (As a result, we have whole articles on the names of some of them.) And Óðin's function, even more than Thor's, has defied pigeonholing, which is why I chose his article to compare. As for "world: Asgard," what's that supposed to mean? Thor spends a great amount of time harrowing Jotunheim. He's the warder of Midgard. He's probably in Asgard less than some of the Vanir. Perhaps these infoboxes should be modified to state which of the races of gods the deity belongs to: the fact that Thor is of the Æsir is germane. But all in all, I think it's less useful than misleading. It implies the gods can be reduced to a list like one might find in an early D & D manual. These are deities of actual religions. For the infobox to be appropriate and a useful summary, it would have to be far more complex. I realize there's a long-standing difference of opinion on Wikipedia as to whether infoboxes are useful; I tend to think it depends on the kind of article. I put one in when I write an article on a steamship, and I put one in on my first article, on an inventor, because the article I used as my format model had one. But I don't think it's actually true that an encyclopedia must have an infobox; even an online encyclopedia. Where the topic is either short enough to be largely covered in one screen, or very complex, as in this case, I don't think it's always useful. So on balance, although I left it alone, I agree with not using it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing about infoboxes is that the information they show is standard to the class of subjects. Creating the infobox before planning it with others is setting yourself up for a disagreement. The "god of" part is reductionist, and in that way misleading. Not all beliefs incorporate totemism or patronage. Those qualifiers are used to relate to the figures of other beliefs, just as god is used so people can relate to the vættir, but the value of that information is limited in my opinion. Especially for the Norse religion, because the figures have a heavy storytelling role, and thus become more human than elemental in nature. The nature of this information is good infobox material, but it suggests a certain point of view on the figure's meaning, which is subject to wide discourse. The "norse name" is subjective even as a transliteration - do we use Latin or Runic letters, which alphabet, and why not include the Western and Eastern names in their native scripts? That's not a problem if this is supposed to be an infobox for Norse figures, but Thor and Odin would need a separate infobox to begin with, because the articles are about all analogous Germanic figures. The remaining information is filler, and the replacement information I can think of is again not a simple matter, such as the wealth of kennings. If there were concise and widely useful information to put in it, the infobox would be useful, but I don't think we have that so far. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the disagreement here is that the Infobox Norse deity does not give enough info fields or seen to be incorrect fields. I think that we could work with the current one. Also, the opening paragraph does not mention that there are any other names then Donar for Thor. So adding "Donar (Southern Germanic)" (if I remembered correct) plus a wikilink in some form to the article on Thor's other names might help.Spshu (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Old English cognate and a Proto-Germanic are also included in the intro. For the infobox to be appropriate, it would essentially mirror the opening paragraphs, which is pointless. I fully agree with the comments above—we don't need an info box on these articles, and it's worth assessing whether or not they're appropriate on other religion/mythology articles for the same reasons. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I reopened this topic, when I created new infobox for the article, because of course in other articles about deities are placed infoboxes, but there is a mysterious person named Bloodofox, which evidently thinks, that he is boss here and he decided, that infobox is unhelpful and misleading, after it he completely removed it. Evidently he obviously believes that a much better solution for the beginning of the article is only a one simple picture of a romantic 19th century painter, it is really ridiculous, surely many articles like Krishna and Vishnu have placed helpful infoboxes with mythological data, very helpful. I thinks, that he is only troll vandalising the work of others and often sabotages the development of articles, because it is far easier for him to delete than to something create. I think I'm not the only one. Dragovit (talk) 17:15, 17 september 2017 (UTC)

@Dragovit: Read the discussion above, and elsewhere on this page. It's reductive and misleading, and articles do not have to be consistent in appearance. No, thank you. The article is better without an infobox. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Dbachmann's changes need to be discussed. On the basis of a brief look while they were happening, I see several different issues:

1. Reordering of sections/subsections - I can see some merit in this, but it's frankly hard for me to get an overall grasp on-screen. Let's talk about the reasoning behind the reordering and Bloodofox's ordering of elements.
2. Lede. I cannot agree that Thor is predominantly mentioned in association with the thunder. Other than the sagas, I think it's notable how not true that is. I'd say predominantly associated with protection (of Asgard and by extension mankind, and of graves) and with his bad temper, but it partly depends how one weighs the very different contexts. (The use of the hammer on runestones, for example, is disputed in some quarters, as mentioned in the article.) That makes me suspicious that the rewrite has a handle on the voluminous material. The lede probably needs to be fitted to the article, not written in advance.
3. Indo-European heritage/cognates and weight to give to them. There's a tremendous split in the field over this that it's possible to be unaware of - scholars have been talking past each other, with linguistic barriers not helping. In some quarters, the whole Indo-European hypothesis is now in question; in others, it's applied rather differently to Thor. Hence the differing views on the "sky-god" thing. I think Dbachmann was right to present this as a speculation; there are others (including Dumézil's, which is still widely accepted and has Thor as one of the types of the second function.)
4. The names material. This section has needed expanding for ages; I have the impression the rewrite did expand it? In that case, good, let's see if we can simply use that part of the rewrite, because we just haven't been covering that adequately. On the other hand - the statement about the days of the week I believe was just moved, not changed? And that is IMO inaccurate. There is zero evidence that I know of of the day-names using interpretatio romana dating back to the Roman Empire. As opposed to being introduced in Anglo-Saxon England as part of the experiment in kinder, gentler conversion and then spread by A-S missionaries to the Continent. I think Simek is wrong on that and now that I've mentioned it, will put chasing down a more detailed source on my list of things to do.

There are very likely more. Have at. Let's discuss. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While this article saw a rewrite by myself some time ago to WP:GA standards, the intention of this WP:GA-focused rewrite was to provide a base to build upon—pulling it out of the abyss of horrendous articles like our current article for Odin (and its cognate orbits, yikes) to grow with a solid foundation.

However, the recent deletion of random, well-sourced material without so much as an edit summary providing reasoning is not at all helpful. On the other hand, the introduction of unsourced material that came with it was just as unhelpful. Adding unsourced material simply degrades the article and it will flatly be removed (see WP:PROVEIT; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source"). Again, for certain, there's much to be added here, but additions need to not only respect the reference system in place, but actually contain, well, references.

As for the oak issue, discussion is welcome here and we need more in the article space. For example, as Yngvadottir points out, we could certainly use a more in-depth etymology section, and our "theories" section needs much expansion. Again, however, that is only if we're on the same page about noting where every scrap of information comes from.

As for the restructuring, I really don't see the point of it and it threatens to produce a synthesis-based "origins" section at the beginning of the article. Currently the article is structured with neutrality and clarity primarily in mind: summary of body ("lead/lede") --> etymology/name --> chronological literary record/attestations --> archaeological record --> eponymy and toponymy --> theories and interpretations (which would include theories on origin; commentary about which we need certainly more).

Indeed, as some of us know, this stuff takes a long time to put together, and no small part of this is due to insisting on abiding by referencing and neutrality requirements. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go in the category "Norse Gods"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tor [tor] in south slavic languages is fertilizer,soil, seeded land. In Thor's list of miracle capabilities is "god of fertility". Could this be connected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Slavic linguist, but I doubt it. "God of fertility" is really a misnomer that illustrates the problem with labeling deities as "god of X" and "goddess of Y" as if they were saints. They do things from which we infer these connections - or from which medieval Christians inferred them. Thor is connected with the thunder (obviously), and it has been generally observed in Northern Europe that the grain ripens after there has been summer thunder - this is because of the nitrogen fixing that happens in a thunderstorm. Hence the statements that his lightning and thunder are needed for this aspect of "fertility". Also in "Þrymskviða" his hammer is recovered after it is laid in his lap when he is at the giant wedding disguised as the bride. This suggests a Norse wedding custom of having Thor bless a bride. But there are much more obvious candidates for the (modern) job of "god of fertility" in the Norse pantheon: Freyr and his father Njörð. In fact the use of the hammer in weddings in association with all the evidence that Thor was called on to hallow things (including his hallowing the pyre at Baldr's funeral) casts doubt on the usefulness of the "fertility god" concept here, suggesting that the bride was thought of as being made holy at a wedding. The categories we are used to working with are not necessarily the most appropriate.--Yngvadottir (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is connected . There is a connection between Slavs and Germanic/Nordic people for example both used Rune magic. There are old slavic runes. And I actually wrote a whole paragraph about Thor fertility connection but was rejected and removed (Trollworkout (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC))

I just added disclaimers regarding some of the images on this article. There appears to be a common, very bad habit, among users of images of stone carvings, to de-emphasize the fact that they are photoshopped to make the lines red. Looking through a plethora of stone carving files, you'll see that most but not all of the photoshopping is listed in the respective metadata sections. So do we really want a generation of people growing up to think that all these carvings are bright red? Obviously, some diligent revisionist must believe so. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The red coloring has not been Photoshopped into these images. This is in fact how some currently look. Runestones were frequently "filled in" with bright red ochre and modern displays restore this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I can verify this. In the days of black and white photography, runestones were prepared with white paint for their official documentation, and the Scandinavian petroglyphs are traditionally kept picked out in red, in addition to the full-bore polychrome used on some of the stones with particularly fine interlaced art. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a change from "a god associated with" to "god of" in the lede because "god of" is a slightly inaccurate anachronism; Thor is not called "god of thunder", etc. in the old sources. This is a relatively modern shorthand. It was used in 19th-century scholarship but not so much in newer scholars. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right in shortening the "reeve Thunor story" until we can base it on secondary references. For the moment, the details of the story can well reside at Domne_Eafe#The_legend. I just want to note that there is probably more to be added here, hopefully I will come across more references.

• at the very least, there was another Thursley in Kent, now not known by this name. If it is at all known where it was, it should be listed under "toponymy".
• the story itself is highly suggestive,
  • some versions of the text have Thunor kill the boys at the command of the king, while in other versions the reeve keeps asking the king to have them killed, but the king keeps refusing. Clearly, Thunor is tempting the king to kill the boys, he is not doing it behind the king's back
  • the bodies are buried under the king's seat, in the hall
  • when the king "discovers" the crime, he feels bad about having angered God more than he had need (not Thunor, the baptized king has committed a crime against God)
  • when the king atones for his deed, the earth swallows up Thunor in a mound, and he is never heard of again

Very clearly, this is a story about human sacrifice to Thunor. I am not of course implying that it must be a historical sacrifice that happened exactly as told, but this is not just an idle placename etiology, it is a memory of pagan sacrifice surviving into post-conversion times. I am not going to push this interpretation here, needless to say it would be "WP:OR" if I did not present secondary references, but the case is so obvious that it is surely only a matter of some research to come up with such references. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a random image of a lightning bolt in this article? It doesn't add anything whatsoever to the understanding of the article and seems like gratuitous image publication to me. I move that it be deleted. Jvanhoy (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, two weeks later and no objections. It's gone. Jvanhoy (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The image was there to illustrate the etymology section. Lightning causes thunder. I'm restoring the image. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The only problem is the etymology section of Thor doesn't need to be illustrated with a picture of lightning to tell our readership that lightning causes thunder -- even if they did not know that much, it tells us NOTHING about the etymology of Thor, and it tells us nothing about Thor period. They need to go to another page to learn about lightning, and here it is off topic, or just looks like Fan art creeping in where it doesn't belong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice, evocative photo from the Teutoburg Forest, but since the fabled forest isn't mentioned in the text it's not entirely clear why the pic. is there. I'm not aware of any specific Teutoburg connection with Thor, and he's not mentioned in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest article, where this pic. also appears. Sca (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The image is a convenient one to illustrate Thor's continental presence by providing an image of a location mentioned in the article. Next to the image is the statement "In his Annals, Tacitus again refers to the veneration of "Hercules" by the Germanic peoples; he records a wood beyond the river Weser (in what is now northwestern Germany) as dedicated to him.[7]" :bloodofox: (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Thor has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In modern times, Thor continues to be referenced in popular culture. Starting with F. J. Klopstock's 1776 ode to Thor, Wir und Sie, Thor has been the subject of various poems, including Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger's 1807 epic poem Thors reise til Jotunheim and, by the same author, three more poems (Hammeren hentes, Thors fiskeri, and Thor besøger Hymir) collected in his 1819 Nordens Guder; Thors Trunk (1859) by Wilhelm Hertz; the 1820 satirical poem Mythologierne eller Gudatvisten by J. M. Stiernstolpe; Nordens Mythologie eller Sinnbilled-Sprog (1832) by N. F. S. Grundtvig; the poem Harmen by Thor Thorild; Der Mythus von Thor (1836) by Ludwig Uhland; Der Hammer Thors (1915) by W. Schulte v. Brühl; Hans Friedrich Blunck's Herr Dunnar und die Bauern (published in Märchen und Sagen, 1937); and Die Heimholung des Hammers (1977) by H. C. Artmann.[64] He also features in two works by Rudyard Kipling: Letters of Travel: 1892-1913 and "Cold Iron" in Rewards and Fairies.

Artists have depicted Thor in painting and sculpture, including Henry Fuseli's 1780 painting Thor in Hymirs Boot bekämpft die Midgardschlange; H. E. Freund's 1821–1822 statue Thor; B. E. Fogelberg's 1844 marble statue Thor; M. E. Winge's 1880 charcoal drawing Thors Kampf mit den Riesen; K. Ehrenberg's 1883 drawing Odin, Thor und Magni; several illustrations by E. Doepler published in Wilhelm Ranisch's 1901 Walhall (Thor; Thor und die Midgardschlange; Thor den Hrungnir bekämpfend; Thor bei dem Riesen Þrym als Braut verkleidet; Thor bei Hymir; Thor bei Skrymir; Thor den Fluß Wimur durchwatend); J. C. Dollman's 1909 drawings Thor and the Mountain and Sif and Thor; G. Poppe's painting Thor; E. Pottner's 1914 drawing Thors Schatten; H. Natter's marble statue Thor; and U. Brember's 1977 illustrations to Die Heimholung des Hammers by H. C. Artmann.[64]

Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1779–1848) discovered a chemical element that he named after Thor; thorium.[65]

In 1962, American comic book writer Stan Lee and his brother Larry Lieber, together with Jack Kirby, created the Marvel Comics superhero Thor, which they based on the god of the same name.[66] This character stars in the 2011 Marvel Studios film Thor and the 2013 film Thor: The Dark World and also appears in the 2012 film The Avengers and its associated animated series.

First described in 2013, Thor's hero shrew (Scutisorex thori) is a species of shrew native to the Democratic Republic of Congo. It and its sister species, the hero shrew (Scutisorex somereni), are the only mammal species known to have interlocking vertebrae.[67] The team named the shrew after Thor due to the god's association with strength.[67]

Thor is also a playable character in the popular video game Smite.^[1] EriseShard (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's the video game, we can't include every webcomic, TV show, or video game in which Thor appears simply as part of the Norse pantheon. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mårten Eskil Winge - Tor's Fight with the Giants - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 22, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-12-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Thor, in Norse mythology, is a hammer-wielding god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength, the protection of mankind, and also hallowing and fertility. He is prominently mentioned throughout the recorded history of the Germanic peoples and is described as relentlessly slaughtering his foes and having fierce battles with the monstrous serpent Jörmungandr. Symbols of Thor were worn in defiance during the Christianization of Scandinavia, and today his influence is found in the names of cities and a day of the week as well as popular culture. He is shown here in Thor's Fight with the Giants, an 1872 painting by Mårten Eskil Winge which depicts the deity in battle with a jötunn.Painting: Mårten Eskil Winge

Archive – More featured pictures...

The infobox now has a list of "equivalent" deities. This seems to be a partly arbitrary selection based on the relatively minor facet of Thor as associated with thunder, while ignoring the facts that 1. The Sami god Horagalles is believed to have been strongly influenced by Thor, with the name even being a corruption of his. 2. In Tacitus interpretatio romana modern scholars think that Thor is represented by Hercules.

A few of the equvalents listed in the box also appear in the main body (Taranis, Perkūnas, Perun, Indra). These could perhaps stay. But Ba'al, Zeus, Jupiter and Saint George need to be properly sourced before they appear.

Andejons (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Who's the wise guy who keeps erasing the part of Thor being the god of thunder, lightning and storms? Because that's what Thor is the god of!! So please, who ever you are, leave it alone!! Michael May II (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thor is literally 'thunder'. He's nowhere described as "god [of] thunder, lightning, and storms" in source material. He doesn't, for example, 'rule over' these things. The situation is more complex than that, as described in the article (the article's lead is a summary of its body). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason that a picture of the Teutoburg Forest appears next to the Roman Era attestations?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The image accompanies the following text: "In his Annals, Tacitus again refers to the veneration of "Hercules" by the Germanic peoples; he records a wood beyond the river Weser (in what is now northwestern Germany) as dedicated to him." :bloodofox: (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I am wondering why is it that Germanic deities like Thor are in the subject of myth while Vedic deities like Indra for example on wikipedia are not? Vedic and Germanic deities should be both seen as legitimate in their own right.

Thank you. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "in the subject of myth", but Norse mythology is what the subject is commonly called in English. Myth does not imply any greater or lesser amount of believability, it is an academic term referring to stories of cultural importance surrounding deities, creation, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Something is up with the display of runic letters... looks like the template is transcluding them incorrectly, rendering them backwards (they should read left to right). I'm reading "ranoth" for Thonar and "ruth" (???) for Thor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this edit seems to have broken things: I'm hesitant to revert it in case that breaks something else in turn. Let's try to ping some template experts. Haukur (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Great Brightstar: could you help us sort this out? Haukur (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the template change because we can't have all runic text on Wikipedia displaying incorrectly until Great Brightstar fixes it. Really should test any template changes in sandbox first! BabelStone (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for late response, the template is now already works as expected, thanks for BabelStone, also thanks to Erutuon digged me up and fixed {{Script/Old Italic}}. --Great Brightstar (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Re this reversal, I came to the section (the section only) from a link in Gerichtslinde to Donar. Seems to me it would have been easier just to add "Thor" than to reverse a valid request for clarity. "Thor" is an awful lot shorter than "Are you serious? Thor's, obviously", and assuming good faith is always nice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to you changing it to "Thor's", but surely you don't need someone to tell you that when the article is "Thor" and the name "Thunor" was mentioned immediately before?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article, not for users to argue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I am merely suggesting you wp:be bold rather than tagging something that is/should be obvious from context. I don't see that as arguing.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article, not for users to address each other about their personal behavior. Any comment that does not tie in directly to article content is not needed here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

please dont wp:wikilawyer me, my comment directly addresses your change in both its iterations. Feel free to move it to your or my talk if you dont like it here.--Ermenrich (talk)

wp:wikilawyer may be an entertaining read, and may come in handy, but it's only an essay. WP:TPYES is a guideline, which we are all supposed to follow, and one of our best. Very clear: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." Your personal comments addressing/reprimanding me, after the fact, and not related to any potential change in content of any kind, were, if not against guideline, in the very least unnecessary. If you want the guideline changed, feel free to start a discussion there. In the meantime, our sticking to it improves the quality of a discussion and thus the potential quality of an article. More so than "surely you don't need someone to tell you that ..." and so forth. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

well read my comment this way then: I do not believe that our readers require the clarification, but I do not object the change. I will leave it to others to agree or disagree.--Ermenrich (talk)

Recently, a user has one again added an infobox to this article, which I have removed.

As has been discussed a few times in the past here, the problems with having an infobox on an entry like this are numerous and clear: This article is about the development of the deity we today know as "Thor", from the Proto-Germanic period into his representation in popular culture today. This article is not simply about Thor among the North Germanic peoples.

We do not know what Thor's family looked like among the ancient Germanic peoples beyond the North Germanic record, just as one example, and slapping an infobox on to this article with misleading or misinformed "facts" as if the deity was a vehicle model or a type of cereal—complete with original research, no less—is neither useful nor helpful to the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

How about box with less information, no misinformation? Certainly some details could be agreed upon?--KasiaNL (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect that the infobox would rapidly just turn into the lead. For example, even basic facts that'd be included require discussion about various ancient Germanic peoples and a variety of other topics. None of the fields in the proposed infobox would holdover, as each would also require context and are only really possible to include anything at all for by drawing only from the North Germanic record. Even Old Norse sources can differ on key topics, just as one example. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no beef here, but suspect that article without box will encourage drive-by box addition. If you craft minimal box, less chance of drive-by infoboxing.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right—random infobox addition has been an issue for the article for a while now, unfortunately. (See discussion threads about it above for a few examples.) Unfortunately, I think adding a very basic infobox that just lists, say, cognate forms or whatever would not innoculate the article from users adding random fields. I figure the best we can do is just remove them when they appear. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If the page is about the "Development" of Thor. Why isn't it titled as such?

The wiki page is about Thor, the deity, right? Treating Thor as something relegated to only to the past does a disservice the deity himself. Why is it okay for Vedic deities to have infoboxes while Thor cannot? We do know that all Germanic languages and such come from Scandinavia, particularly, from the Nordic Bronze age. By this, we can deduce of what Thor's childrens' names, and wife's name would be in other respective Germanic languages. I am all for the Infobox. Please do not revert my edit.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article? This article about the Thor complex, including the Old English and contintenal Germanic record, as the lead and body make crystal clear.

Had you read the article or were you otherwise particularly familiar with this topic, you'd be well aware that, in the corpus, interpretatio germanica equates Thor with Jupiter, whereas interpetatio romana equates the deity to Hercules. You'd also be quite aware of how the deity is or not connected to others in Indo-European studies, most commonly connecting the deity complex to Indra. Of course, that all requires discussion and context, which is something infoboxes do not provide.

You'd also be aware that 'facts' about myth and other folklore genres can vary by time, place, and source, and you'd then be much more wary about describing 'family members' by way of an infobox. This article isn't about a car model, video game, or manga character, it's about a deity who appears on the historical record over a wide span of time in a wide span of places, and who, by way of historical circumstances, we just so happen to have narratives about primarily from North Germanic record. That sort of discussion requires context, nuance, and reliable sourcing.

Yeah, other articles elsewhere are in bad shape, this one is not—drop the whataboutisms, and read the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Leornendeealdenglisc: You are assuming an infobox is a mark of respect; it isn't. As Bloodofox has been explaining, it will inevitably be an oversimplification; infobozes inevitably also highlight certain things (like somebody's idea of what Thor is "god of", as past infobox suggestions here have discussed, or like his family relationships). A minimal infobox is no improvement because it still selects what to include, and because it invites editors to stuff more into it. Better to show our respect—to the reader as well—by making the article itself as comprehensive and clear as possible, and making the introduction an excellent summary of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The article should definitely have an infobox. In most publications Thor is considered as son of Odin and Jörð, Sif is his wife and Móði and Magni are his sons, Mjölnir is his weapon etc. and infobox is created for informations like that. Now it looks like authours of the article are trying to be smarter than scholars and this is not what wikipedia is about. The counterparts in other religions are indeed ambiguous but again - scholars usually compare him to other Thunderers of Indoeuropeans. The argument that "this article also talks about Thor in modern culture" is weak because it is not main topic. Sławobóg (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read the above discussion and refer to tertiary sources from specialists, and you'll find that these topics can vary by source, time, and place in the North Germanic record, and that this topic covers the deity Thor throughout the broader ancient Germanic record. For example, in one source Tyr is Thor's brother, in another he's not. Odin may or may not have been Thor's father during an earlier era, including the early North Germanic period—it might have been Tyr, for example. And that's just the North Germanic record. Infoboxes cannot communicate this without turning into a paragraph. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I read the discussion and ofcourse I understand what you are saying. Informations that differ depending on the time/place could be displayed like they are displayed in the Jupiter article. As for the family, which is indeed complicated in the case of Thor, the information I mentioned should be given in the infobox and expanded in a separate paragraph. When there is no other historical information about Thor's father, then Odin should be definitely listed. The thing is, people expect an infobox to get basic information quickly and most informations from that removed infobox were correct (with some informations like weapons missing). Sławobóg (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's Jupiter article is unfortunately a complete mess as it stands, fraught with misinformation and bizarre speculaton, while somehow missing some of the most important scholarly discussions about the figure. It needs to be totally rewritten. The same can be said for the infobox there, and the article makes for a fine example of how not to write about entities from myth. The reality is that some things stay the same over time and other things change, and infoboxes are ideal for concrete figures and facts, which is an alien approach to complex and nuanced topics such as these. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This article (and several other articles relating to Germanic and Norse deities) definitely needs an infobox. Scholars have identified a set of common traits that can be definitely be put in the infobox, and it not a gross oversimplification. Deities of other religions such as Hinduism have gone through similar changes over time with different traits coming and going, but they still have infoboxes that list the common attributes, they do not completely get rid of the infobox on the ridiculous claim that it is "oversimplifying". Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I support adding Infobox. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 06:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it would improve the article. It seems like some users just have decided that they want an infobox, and then try to come up with motivations for it. The only useful thing I can think of would be to have a simple list of the major medieval texts where Thor is a central figure, but that's more suitable in a navigational box. Everything else will just be misguided attempts to codify things that perhaps appear in one or two poems, or simplifications of things that need more nuance. The article has several problems already, I would focus on improving the text instead. Ffranc (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see those editors opposing an infobox explain how this article should meet the needs of a reader who

• knows Thor only from the Marvel Cinematic Universe,
• thinks vaguely he's a Celtic god of war, and
• needs the correct information within five seconds.

—VeryRarelyStable 10:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what the lead section is for. The first sentence provides everything you ask for here. An infobox would do the same thing but worse, giving an impression of something static and revealed, rather than mythical and ethnic. Ffranc (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ffranc. Infobox is needed to get information quickly and make the pages look more systematic. That's the function of Infoboxes and additional details should be mentioned in the lead. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 11:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)