Talk:Moroii

Cite

The first line says "in folkklore" but then says a bunch of things that sound quite bizarre... Sources, please. DreamGuy 20:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

None of it is especially obscure information. A simple websearch on "moroii" will actually reveal quite a lot. None of this is really that bizarre, aside from maybe the bit about the moroii coming back to life as a "regular" vampire, which I previously hadn't questioned because it seemed pretty consistent with the rest of it (now that you mention it, that particular part doesn't sound very folklore-ish; I'll try to figure out where it originated, though I suspect it may be speculation on the part of various website owners).

The rest of it, however, is easily verifiable -- or at least it was three years ago, when I found that same information on hundreds of different websites. A scholarly citation shouldn't be too difficult to dig up. I'll get on it here in the next couple of days, and when that's done we can remove the disclaimer template at the top of the page. --Corvun 20:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'd also like to appologize for not citing sources to begin with. I trip up on the "common knowledge" issue sometimes in situations like this, in this case thinking "well, anyone who knows what a 'moroii' is knows this!", forgetting that the moroii themselves are not common knowledge and that people who have no idea what the heck this article is talking about are going to want to know where the information comes from. So, that doesn't excuse it, but I hope it explains it, and I will fix it.

In case it needs to be highlighted, "hundreds of websites" is meaningless, as there are thousands of sites with info that's completely bogus, made up, fictional, nonsense, based upon delusions, etc. You should have real sources before making an article. DreamGuy 21:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Real sources should not be at all difficult to find. You may want to tone down the hostility and the confrontational attitude. This isn't Usenet. --Corvun 21:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You say "real sources" but keep talking about websites... You seem to be missing the point completely. And I think you should tone down your hostility, as I am only asking for something that is required of all articles here before they are created. DreamGuy 23:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I had a few minutes of spare time before I had to disconnect, so I just now tried using google to track down my sources. Unfortunately as has been the case every single time I've tried using this cursed google, all I got was a couple thousand hits that seemed to all be copies of the exact same 6 pages, 3 of which weren't even in English. But I figured I'd try using google first, since it seems to be held in high esteem here on Wikipedia. When I come back later I'll try again using a more reliable search engine like Yahoo or Hotbot. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find a few good, solid, reliable sources. --Corvun 21:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it shouldn't take more than a few minutes, why haven't you? It's pointless for you to keep posting that you say it's reliable and haven't found anything to back it up yet. Please just find reliable sources and post them. Yahoo and Hotbot are not "more reliable" than Google, by the way, and you still don't seem to quite get the idea here. DreamGuy 23:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okay dude, I've been trying to be patient with you, even bothered to post an update so you'd know I was working on it and not just blowing hot air, but this is a bunch of B.S. This whole "you didn't cite a source therefore I KNOW FOR A FACT that what's written here is untrue" is pure crap and you know it. You also know very well that there are reliable sources of information on the internet, once you cut through all the garbage that's out there, just like any, other, medium. Accusing other people of posting unreliable information before you know the source of said information (or assuming from the start that no such sources exist) is not assuming good faith, nor is it proper netiquette, nor would it be considered acceptable behavior in public. You accuse me of "not getting the idea" yet you don't even seem to understand the concept of grown-up behavior. If there are no solid, reliable sources on the web, it's only a matter of going to the library and checking out virtually any in-depth book on the subject of vampires in folklore, which will have the same information I've put here and more. In fact, this article has the potential to be a fairly in-depth treatment on the subject. This would take a little longer, as getting to a library isn't an easy thing to do for everyone, but until then you have your little template up there so no harm, no foul. So go smoke a bole and chill the heck out, or take a nap, or take a pill, or something. --Corvun 01:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also, personal attacks are extremely frowned upon on Wikipedia, but I'll ignore these, providing you agree to chill out. --Corvun 02:09, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are the one making personal attacks, and I suggest you knock it off. Besides doing that, I once again reiterate that you need to actually get real sources for this information. DreamGuy 00:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This entire talk page has thus far been filled with you "reiterating" this "profound point" you think you've been making (which I agreed with you on from the very start), often reiterating it within a single posting, as if to imply some time had elapsed regardless of the fact that it hadn't. You don't need to "reiterate" anything, and this "I know you are but what am I" tactic, accusing me of making personal attacks when all of the above clearly shows I did no such thing, isn't going to fly. Thus far I have tolerated your personal attacks, as well as some of the pettiest and most juvenile behavior I've come across in recent time, and asked nothing in return for the unreasonable amount of tolerance I've extended you but that you cool yourself down and start acting like a rational adult. Clearly, this is beyond your ability. --Corvun 00:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

There is a page at Walking the Night which has some of that information, as well as a couple of sources (both "vampire encyclopedia" type books) which could come in handy. --NW 14:28, September 16, 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

offspring of two (undead) Vampires. As the child has not yet died, it will breathe, have a beating heart, and a human soul, but will have inherited all the strengths and powers of a vampire. Having a human soul, it will also be able to function normally in broad daylight, will have neither the need nor the desire to drink blood, and will not be threatened by either religious symbols/words or garlic. In short, the Moroii will have all the strengths of a Vampire, but none of the weaknesses. In some interpretations the Moroii will cease to age after reaching adulthood, or will age more slowly, however in most interpretations it will age like a normal human. If a Moroii is killed by means other than those that would also kill a Vampire, the Moroii's corpse (with the human soul now gone from it, having crossed over into the afterlife) will arise as a regular Vampire.

The Moroii make excellent Vampire hunters, more so even than Dhampirs.

Putting this here until either (a) I have a chance to get to the library and get a decent reference for the material, or (b) someone else does.

Moroi

See also Moroi, the correct masculine singular and plural form (in this case, the singular and plural form is the same; however, in the feminine form, the singular and plural are different). In folklore, the distinction between a Moroi and a Strigoi was not always clear or consistent (as is often the case in actual folklore). In fiction, the distinction has become clear and consistent. These articles have to be merged. Under what title? Not sure which is more common in scholarly English sources (which is more common in a google search is irrelevant), but Moroi is the correct singular and plural form in Romanian. Alexander 007 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC) I expect that the spelling Moroii is more common in fiction. If so, Moroii can refer to the fictional version, Moroi to the original folklore versions. Alexander 007 08:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Moroii

Moroii seems to have taken hold in fiction as a plural of Moroi. If this is incorrect, I may be partly responsible, because I have heard "Strigoii" as a plural of "Strigoi" and assumed Moroii would be the plural by analogy. I advised people at White Wolf Games' website this would be the case, but I can't be sure as I speak only "phrasebook" Romanian.