Talk:Seven Dwarfs

Dwarves

Shouldn't it be "Dwarves"? AaronW from ABQ (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, it should be "DWARVES" -one dwarf, two dwarves - same as scarf/scarves.

See Dwarfs vs. dwarves - Grammarist.com. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Dwarfs" is the plural that was accepted at the time of the animated Disney movie in 1937. JRR Tolkien, and later, Dungeons & Dragons following Tolkien's lead, popularized the "Dwarves" plural. I prefer the version that uses a 'V' myself, as it follows the wolf/wolves or calf/calves pattern, but I guess the Disney movie presents what many people think of as the 'classic' version of the characters, and it uses "Dwarfs". Keovar (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking his cue from, it might be supposed, The Brothers Grimm, Tolkien also uses the magic number seven in the origin myth of his dwarf tribal fathers, the Longbeards (Durin's Folk), the Broadbeams, the Firebeards, the Ironfists, the Stiffbeards, the Blacklocks, and the Stonefoots.

Nuttyskin (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Grumpy in ABC's Once Upon a Time

Didn't he used to be named Dreamer, not Dreamy (which is what this article says)?

--71.121.143.197 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am watching the show just now (Australian DVD edition of Season 1, 9-398511-884037, episode 14) and the name that appears on his (pick)axe is unambiguously "DREAMY". The episode title is also "Dreamy".

121.45.169.228 (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Magic the Gathering reference

In Wizards of the Coast's card game Magic the Gathering, the most recent set included a "Seven Dwarves" card that you're allowed to use seven copies of (normal is four). The theme of the "Throne of Eldraine" set is described as "Camelot meets Grimm's fairy tales", so the card is definitely intended as a reference to tho seven from the Snow White story, just presented more 'serious' in tone. https://scryfall.com/card/eld/141/seven-dwarves Keovar (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Response from people with dwarfism

From an informational point of view, why is this section of the article even appearing? It quite literally adds nothing illuminating to the entry, clearly represents the individual statements of just three people who all seem to be grabbing attention instead of representing any kind of community, and it ends with a totally unnecessary, vulgar quote. The whole section appears to be little more than a prank addition. I'm removing it until someone can make a strong argument otherwise. Frumious Bander (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Frumious Bander

Thank you for your thoughts. I have found inconsistencies between the censorship of it; one of my devices censors it with #'s, while the other does not. LeonhardEuler27 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Names

Keep doing movies like this 2600:100E:BF1A:536:B9B6:B0D3:B4E3:89A3 (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)