User talk:Ingwina

You should zoom that out to include the Channel Islands, Jan Mayen and Svalbard, that way it covers the general maximum definition of Northern Europe according to the United Nations.Vesperius (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vesperius :) If you're referring to the satelite map, it does include the Channel Islands by my reckoning. As for the other two, they are unfortunately omitted from the image I derived the Northern Europe image from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_satellite_orthographic.jpg) so I can't zoom out, unfortunately. If you find a better once, feel free to replace mine. --Ingwina (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant the original First Language Map. Sorry for not clarifying. Vesperius (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

No fret! I just checked and the software I used for it annoyingly misses off the Channel Islands and the others. It also doesn't go too far north and only leaves a tiny bit of Svalbard.--Ingwina (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Aw, oh well. Vesperius (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep it is a pain! Again feel free to update it if you find something better :) --Ingwina (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the color for the Celtic languages and Sami languages in the index of the Northern Europe First Language Map 2 is correct. Can you fix it if it's not? Vesperius (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Then the consensus is wrong. If you look at the talk page, the debate has ended and no one has brought up a good reason as to why it should stay in that section. The “reasons” given have been nothing but thinly veiled partisanship. FactCheckTruth (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi FactCheckTruth. Please see my response on the Othala page. Hopefully this will help. Ingwina (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ingwina,

Nice article at Germanic boar helmet; just wanted to leave a comment that some of the sources (Foster 1977a, Speake 1980, Stiegemann, Kroker & Walter 2013b, and Hatto 1957) are not associated with a source. This may just be the result of entering years/letters incorrectly in some of the cases but wanted to let you know. Very nice work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges,

Thanks for the nice feedback and thanks for the catch there. It should all be sorted now. Ingwina (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ingwina, I saw that you also came across this article. I don't even know where to begin on it, seems to be the result of one or more anonymous editors inserting their own original research without pushback since the beginning of this year. On top of that judging by their edit summaries they either have some kind of conflict of interest or they're trolling, not sure which one is worse. Either way they're aggressive and evidently clueless about basic policy such as sourcing, which I've given several notices to them about to no avail. Do you know anything about this family? What's the best approach here? I'm thinking of just wiping the article back to how it was before they came in, when it was at least sourced more properly, but I'm not sure so since you're the only other person I've seen edit it I'd like to ask you about it as you might know more about it than me. TylerBurden (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi TylerBurden - I also winced slightly when I saw it but really don't know much about it. I found it through Boars in heraldry which was also pretty dodgy and still has some issues. The editor is clearly a bit odd and is being openly rude. I think reverting all their edits would make sense. There is so little reliable sourcing like you said and I don't have any trust in their work given their clear motivations to not be objective. Good spot on this one though - thanks for dealing with it. I'll put irt on my watchlist to keep an eye on it - I'm sure they'll be back. Ingwina (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Right on, thanks for the response. I'll go ahead and reset it to before they started messing it up. Their reaction should be interesting given that they have been throwing tantrums at even slight interferences with their ″work″, but I'm willing to deal with that in order to get the article back into somewhat decent shape. I've got it on my watchlist so if you've already got quite a full one I think I can deal with it, but of course your help is welcome. Thanks either way! TylerBurden (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant. It looks much better now. Thanks for the good work! Ingwina (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I recall that at some point in the recent past you were looking for discussion of the use of the term "giant" in place of jötun. I've encountered this come up several times. Most recently, discussion about this topic occurs in John Lindow's Old Norse Mythology (2021, Oxford University Press). On page 18, Lindow discusses how the term is "misleading" and how the jötnar are rarely distinguished by their size. Nonetheless, he continues to use the term for the rest of the book. I can provide more direct quotes if you like and I'll keep an eye out for where else I've seen such discussion. I believe there was a very relevant article I encountered sometime within the past few years that I'm now trying to find again. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That's brilliant - thank you. It's on my list of bits I really want to get done and I'm hoping to sort it out in the next few weeks. Anything you find would be very useful and I'll be looking too. Ingwina (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for confused edits. Regarding the recent revert: as I understand, Midwinter didn't take place during the solstice and the Saga attributed Hákon with moving Yule from Midwinter to solstice/Christmas; is that correct? SMiki55 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi SMiki55 :) Not a problem at all - it's a confusing topic and there is lots of questionable information out there! It's good to get discussions going so we can sort it out collectively. So this is the bit I think you're referencing:

"Hann setti þat í lögum at hefja jólahald þann tíma sem kristnir menn, ok skyldi þá hverr maðr eiga mælis öl, en gjalda fé ella, en halda heilagt meðan jólin ynnist. En áðr var jólahald hafit hökunótt, þat var miðsvetrar nótt, ok haldin þriggja nátta jól."

"He made a law that the festival of Yule should begin at the same time as Christian people held it, and that every man, under penalty, should brew a meal of malt into ale, and therewith keep the Yule holy as long as it lasted. Before him, the beginning of Yule, or the slaughter night, was the night of mid-winter, and Yule was kept for three days thereafter."

A key difficulty here is what we mean by "the night of midwinter" (Old Norse: "miðsvetrar nótt"). Also we need to be careful with extrapolating this source out into other cultures observing Yule. It seems to be the case that the celebration of Yule gets moved to align with Christmas in England, Norway and so on but these all occured at different times. We also know that Hákon's attempt to Christianise Norway wasn't without bumps so it may have returned to the traditional time afterwards.

A good discussion is in https://www.academia.edu/1366945/Jul_disting_och_f%C3%B6rkyrklig_tider%C3%A4kning.

Here we see in the English summary at page 155-156.

"The exact information about the time of the pre-Christian Yule is given by

Snorri, who says that the feast was celebrated on Midwinter Night. This has,

however, been much debated, because Midwinter Night did not occur until

about a month after the winter solstice. In actual fact this does not present a major

problem, because Yule seems to be linked to both the winter solstice and

Midwinter Night. Yule was probably celebrated at the time of the second Yule

lunar month’s full moon. This moon month started at the first new moon after

the winter solstice. Its full moon could thereby occur on 5 January at the earliest

and on 2 February at the latest—expressed in the Gregorian calendar."

We also need to keep in mind that it may sound like the date of Yule is variable but it only moves in calendars like the Gregorian calendar. In the Early Germanic calendar, it is always the same day :) I've been meaning to tidy up these pages but haven't had the time. If you want to - I'm here to help with sources and so on and checking over your work - if not I understand and I will get there in the end!

I hope this helps! Ingwina (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for response and apologies for not responding myself (I didn't get the notification).

Would you be able to write a section discussing the date in the article? It seems that people are still re-adding solstice as the date without noticing article edit history; a section devoted to dating in the article itself might be helpful :)

Cheers!

SMiki55 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - that's probably my fault for not tagging properly or something like that! Okay yep no problem I'll put in on my list. I may be able to get it out this weekend :) Ingwina (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

SMiki55 I've uploaded it now. The scope of the page is blurry and it'd benefit from input from sensible people so do take a look and see what you think! Ingwina (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, recently you removed a fair bit of one of my edits due to an unreliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Numbers_in_Norse_mythology&oldid=1152772189. I was looking into the source and it does seem amateur but looking into the citations and the About Me section it seems sincere. So I am curious what to look out for in the future so I'm not fooled again by an unreliable source. Thank you! Chacabangaso (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chacabangaso! Thanks for getting in touch. The first place I'd check out is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This gives the guidelines. Really what you're aiming for is work from reputable scholars - ideally the work should be in a peer reviewed journal :) If you want my opinion on if something looks good you can always give me a shout! Google scholar is often a good place to start! Ingwina (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ingwina. You've recently reversed my 'Modern Culture' reference in the Weyland the Smith entry on two occasions, the first due to no citation, the second questioning the veracity of the citation. Looking at your editing history I can see that you appear to be a source of expertise in these areas that I'll loosely call Northern European mythology, I respect your knowledge and contributions - and undoubted wish to keep exact the pages you monitor. However I do feel that you are being a little harsh on my edit. Neither of the other 2 'Modern Culture' references have citations at all, yet are allowed to stand. I have attempted to place a citation on my addition, but it has been reverted. This feels like multiple standards on the page. As it is, it was very difficult to find a more in-depth citation for the book reference. The author was a medium figure in fantasy literature - referenced in Wikipedia itself, but the genre typically does not get covered by extensive literary study and comment from major sources, peer review etc. I'm well aware of the story, having read it several times in my youth, and then making the connections having visited the 'Wayland Smithy' long Barrow near the Uffington Horse and looking into the history. The story is very clearly the source material for the trilogy, with the specifics I mentioned used as the primary plot in the third book. I think it is a reasonable entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quagswag (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Quagswag! Thanks for dropping me a message. Thanks too for your compliments - it's really appreciated. So in regards to the revert- I completely get the frustration. The core of the problem is that we need reliable sources to accurately back everything up so that we can make this as good quality as possible. With the Goodreads source, we had a two-fold problem of the source not mentioning all the content in the text and also that the Goodreads reviews can be written by anyone without any checking - in concept one could write a review about how good Gandalf is described in Pride and Prejudice and then it could be used to back up a claim along these lines. I feel your frustration and know how difficult it can be to find sources on modern influence like this and I did take a look earlier to see what I could find through academic journals without any luck. I am a massive supporter of the accurate description of the modern influences of Northern European lore so I do really appreciate your efforts in this. A potential way to reference it well is to use the books themselves, referencing page numbers and the like. I can't promise it'll get past other wikipedlings with finer toothed combs regarding guidelines on reliable sources and significant modern influences but the approach would make sense to me.

As for the other unreferenced sections, they do frustrate me and I was likely the one who put the markers down. In the case when a mention slips past me or has dwelt there since before I was here, I tend to put markers and then may also delete them depending on number, relevance and time since the marker was placed. I won't be wholly consistent on this but I can assure you they are being treated in the same way as your work, I just likely wasn't there to revert them. I revert a lot of unreferenced or insufficiently referenced material - definitely annoying for the writers but essential to keep wikipedia tidy and useful for readers. I hope this helps and makes sense and I'm keen to help where I can! Ingwina (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ingwina. Thank you for getting back to me and providing a detailed explanation around all the inconsistences. I can understand your frustration in regard to the other unreferenced sections. I'm presuming you cannot 'revert' them after a certain period of time?

It's going to be tricky getting a citation that works. I will go dig out my copy of the book to find some relevant passages. I suspect it is going to be difficult. I did have a look online, but there are no readable PDF's from what I would consider a reputable source (not stealing from authors...). If I do find a quote from a physical book, I'm presuming that copying it into the page would not be acceptable. I may love the books, but that creates way too long a reference for such a minor section!

For someone who doesn't get around to making contributions often, It's fascinating looking at the history of pages. I've been taking a look and can see I similar problem with what was then termed the 'Popular Culture' section. I had restored the section - that had been lost from this page for 2 years; only to have it entirely removed again immediately. The Hammer of the Sun reference was in there too, I suspect I put it in the original list :) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayland_the_Smith&oldid=281046515 I appreciate the attempts to keep pages clean, but looking down that older list, I can see what we are losing in terms of collective knowledge; which saddens me. I'm sure those with a passion for Wikipedia editing have discussed this sort of thing many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quagswag (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Quagswag. Yep it's always just about the trickiness of referencing them and also it's quite easy for the list of references in the popular culture section to start dominating the page - in times like this, folks can sometimes start trimming it down based on notability but I'm not clued up enough on wikipedia guidelines to typically do that myself. In terms of referencing, the sfn system may help you - this is how I typically reference and you can just put in the citation the pages of relevance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sfn

If you need any help with it again just give a shout! Ingwina (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Cult house has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16 § Cult house until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Fax (hair) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 19 § Fax (hair) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see you're a member of WP:Folklore, would you be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition (which folklore is a subset of)? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kowal2701! I'd definitely be interested. I have a long list of planned works but if I can I'll help out :) Ingwina (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I really appreciate your additions to the article, but I would like to ask that you go back and remove the detail you added. First, there is now a bunch of detail on Britain, and if it's in one place, it should be in all, and it isn't. That gives Britain WP:Undue weight.

Second, this is a broad overview article and details - even when they can be seen as evidence for what's being said - are not broad. Determining what details are important enough to include requires some larger impact on some major issue during the overall 2000 year history. The detail on Britain is not that.

Third, my goal is to take this article to FA. It's already long enough that it is unlikely to succeed based purely on that length, so adding more at this point torpedoes those goals. This is a "premiere" article that should be FA imo, and anything that makes that more difficult is problematic.

I am trying to finish up adding Eastern Christianity, which was specifically requested in the peer review, and every time I add something, I look for something to delete. Out of respect for your work, I am asking you to cut most of what you added in order to do the same. It's not that it isn't good and interesting. It's just too much for this particular article. Please support my effort to get this article up to FA standards, and go back and cut all of the detail you can cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jenhawk777 and thanks for getting in touch. I understand your point and think we can find a good middle ground for a lot of this. From where I stand, we need to not be misleading with it and link the main article on the topic that I've just sorted out.

There wasn't even a section for Britain after 600. I've chopped a load out and I think it covers everything briefly now. Hopefully it's okay now :) Ingwina (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be unappreciative of your work. It's good work with good intent, I can see that. In the Origins section, it lists pretty thoroughly all the various locations, but if you note, they are not all followed up on thereafter. One of the first things the first peer review did was cut all specific mentions of countries - then in the second review, others asked why they weren't mentioned. Par for the course for peer review, but now it's on those of us working on it to decide what to do. I am thinking I am going to have to - have to - cut all the countries into a simple list of one paragraph - maybe describe one thing in the way origins/geographic spread does. I will probably end up doing that for the sake of brevity. I'm sorry. It's just too much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's okay! Don't worry - I know how this goes. My biggest problem with it was it being misleading. Selective briefness that misses the key points and suggests that it's telling the whole story is the issue. Just briefly mentioning it and saying where to go to find more is all that matters! If you're being consistent between regions, how could I ask for more? :) Ingwina (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I went and condensed and removed, and the *##!! thing is still over 12,000 words. (I kept some of your stuff on Britain, since it was so good.) However, I still don't think I can nominate at that length. I am extremely frustrated. I also sympathize with and understand your frustration. Defining key points is definitely an issue. If you find anything that seems misleading, please do tell me! We do not want that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay perfect - that sounds like a plan. Thank you for your understanding and dedication to making great articles. I wish you all the best with the nomination and that all your hard work pays off! Ingwina (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Your last edit added England - which began when? Should that be included? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you worried about anachronism? So England as a kingdom became an entity roughly between 927 and 1016 but as a geographical region, it is common for scholars to use England to refer to the region of Britain settled by Germanic folks from the 5th century and their later kingdoms (see Anglo-Saxon England). It's a debated and imperfect term but is typically used in this way and it's probably the best we have, especially if we're trying to be succinct :) I think it's also good to use that term as it is very possible (and some will know this for sure) that paganism was suppressed in Roman Britain in areas that became English later on. I hope this makes sense and I'm always happy to help! Ingwina (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you've been a stickler for using Iberia etc. so I was surprised to see 'England' before there was one. What evidence is there that paganism was suppressed in Roman Britain? Britain was abandoned about 400 and in that same period, paganism was still alive and well in the empire. The only things being suppressed were sacrifice and divination.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

But my point that I tried to explain above (likely poorly) is that in the 7th century there was an England it just wasn't a single kingdom. I don't think it's anachronistic to talk about it in this way. You could specify "Anglo-Saxon England" but that is more words and is just more specific rather than necessary. England is commonly used to refer to the areas in which Old English was spoken in Britain before the unification in the 10th century and onwards. England does not in this case mean the kingdom of England.

My point about Britain and suppression is not that I'd ever seen anything saying there was suppression but that my reference and claim that this is the first time in England that suppression happened is not trying to claim anything about other bits of Britain or the region that became England before it before the Anglo-Saxon settlement. It also seems plausible to me that there was suppression recorded that I'm not aware of in Western or Northern Britain or Ireland before the 7th century but I don't know enough about these regions to know if there was.Ingwina (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ingwina,

Thank you very much for creating a discussion at Talk:Svaðilfari. You're the first person who has taken this ideal approach in the years-long dispute, so there's finally a place where the matter could be discussed instead of edit warring. I'm always happy to see someone taking this step.

However, if I may ask, please focus on content there. I'd recommend changing the heading to something about the content itself, not the behavior. The reverting isn't what would be discussed there; the content is. Also, the protection is now there, but protection could have been requested and discussed at WP:RFPP. Instead of describing how the edit warring behavior is a waste of time, please describe why you prefer the version you have restored. What exactly in this version makes it preferable to the IP editor's version? Is the content more accurate, and how so? Is it more encyclopedic, and why? Is there perhaps, ideally, a policy or guideline you can cite about this, such as the policy against original research that prohibits personal interpretation of primary sources? That would be perfect.

Before someone replies, you can still freely change heading and content of your talk page section. If you agree it could be improved, please do; I can then invite the others to the discussion and there's finally a consensus we can point to if someone still reverts.

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ToBeFree! Yes okay no problem - forgive my poor focusing - that was my tiredness speaking with the situation and I'm not as familiar with protocols and style guides as others. I should be able to sharpen up the article this weekend and make all these changes then. I fully agree with your points. Ingwina (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

All good, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I know the history of Normandy and the Normans in Italy very well (see Norman conquest of southern Italy) and I am able to affirm that the yellow color of the map refers to the Normans and not to the Vikings. These are known and verifiable facts and before reverting my details you should have checked them yourself. As for the yellow on the map of England, it also confuses the Normans and the Vikings, since it is about the Norman conquest of England. I have also left a message on the reliability of this map to the Wikipedia administration. Have a good day. Best regards.Nortmannus (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi :) I agree about the southern Italy bit and I probably should have specified that I agree there but the issue is that England was also fully conquered by Scandinavians in the 11th century separately to the Norman conquest - it is not that I did not check it out of laziness. To be honest it's just odd to me that the Italy bit is yellow. I don't see why Norman conquests are included for the reasons that you said - it's pushing it to class them as Scandinavians :) Ingwina (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can take this to the image's discussion page. It seems we're in agreement that the map is wrong. Ingwina (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I thought id bring this discussion here first for convenience, since u are one of the few ive seen care for this subject.

To the point. Most, if not all rune-articles needs updating and renovation, and this is a big task, which requires a plan, which requires discussion, thus here i am. For example, they are currently very limited and focused on "popular rune-culture" (for the lack of a better term), which can be seen in the Template:Infobox rune, as it only features Proto-Germanic, Old English, and Old (West) Norse. We also combine several related runes into one article, like ᚨᚩᚪᚫᚭᚬᚮᚯᚰ > Ansuz (rune), ᛃᛄᛡᛡᛅᛆ > Jēran, ᛊᛋᛌᛍᛎᛪ > Sowilō (rune), which is weird if we compare cognate characters like ø/ö and ð/đ, which have separate articles despite effectively being the same letter historically and still being analogs in function.

One of the worst offenders imo are the reconstructed PGM names used for article names, despite them often enough being very speculative, and iirc a few times even obsolete, as well as "normalized" (ōþalą > "othala"). Imo we should not promote these names as primary, since they are unproven neologisms. A better example, if we use such, is to do it like *Frijjō, which features the star * to mark it as reconstructed.

One major part of my proposal is to split the rune-articles up as well as possible, akin to how letters are done. At this point, effectively every major webbrowser can display unicode runes by default, thus one idea is to split them based on unicode (to the best extent), or split them based on name: ᚩ > Ós (rune), ᚪ > Ác (rune), ᚫ > Æsc (rune, etc. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 13:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Blockhaj and thanks for letting me know about this. I do agree with most of your points but there are some bits I worry about. In terms of splitting up all the rune variants, I worry it would leave each one as a stub or with lots of repeated information. *Haglaz for example has both the one bar and two bar forms. We see a many pocked *Berkanan on the Hole stone. I think it makes sense to cover these in the same place.

For naming, adding the * before PGmc is a no brainer for me. It just should be there. I also am not a fan at all of normalising into more "standard" Latin script so you have my vote there. I don't know about the technicalities of having non-Latin script in titles. Greek letters are typically rendered as Latin script from what I can see. I'm not inherently opposed to it in concept again though.

I'm happy to help out though. As you know, it really hurt when I found the othala page just filled with horrible Nazi material and next to nothing about the rune as it has been and is still used for the overwhelming majority of time since it was created. I am keen to help remedy this. Ingwina (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Ait good. Luckily, it seems we have fairly free hands on these articles. But if u feel this should be brought to a project discussion page, then do tell.

As for clarifying some things. Splitting of the rune variants will have to be done with caution and planning to make sure we do not end up with eternal stubs or duplicate articles (not joking, this has been an issue to avoid for ø/ö and ð/đ on Swedish Wikipedia, since they are literally the same goddamn letter). Luckily, this suggestion doesnt come out of the blue, as i believe we could easily split the runes and still end up with decently lengthy articles. The glyph development and usage alone can fill an A4 without much effort. The aim is to treat the runes as any other letter on Wikipedia, which most of the time have separate articles based on glyph etc, but the scope is also more limited and that we have to work around.

With the case of *Haglaz, my proposal is to have single-bar ᚺ and twin-bar ᚻ under the same banner, since they are stylistic choices historically and appear both in Elder and Anglo futhark, albeit with with different prominence. Norse ᚼ would be its own article to ᚺᚻ, simply due to its new glyph, just like ø/ö and ð/đ for example, or Latin H vs Greek Η (Heta) vs Cyrillic Һ, etc. The same would go for stylistic choices of *berkanan. Some issues to discuss in detail would for example be different runes who shares the same unicode, like ᛡ (Runic Letter Ior), which is /j/ and /ia/ in Anglo, but non-nasal /ᴀ/ in late Proto-Norse (later evolving into ᛅ). Both share the same unicode, and its debatable which should have the redirect for it, and how to potentially name them: ᛡ (Íor), ᛡ (*Ār)? (just speculating openly here) Same with Anglo ᚴ > ᚴ (bookhand s)? As with the Greek letters, articles can also simply be named after the runes name, or most prominent version of the name.

Nazi stuff, or SS runes as i prefer to call them, also requires work, which could be woven into the project. I already did Odal (SS rune), but there is much more to do. The best way to separate these cancerous things from historical runes is to give them their own articles. An easy one to do is to translate the Swedish article for Tyr (SS rune) [sv]. Then there is the discussion of neopagan/newage divination, and how to treat that, etc. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 16:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep I do agree that as long as we're sensible we won't have too much trouble implementing changes. Perhaps we do have a page somewhere where we plan out the scope of what we want to do and work out what we'd include so we don't get into the messes we've mentioned? I am nervous about ending up with stubs but I guess we just only split pages where we would have enough material. I would expect the four pocketed *berkanan would not make sense to separate from the two pocket form because I think we would struggle to get enough material for it and it would make sense to explore together. Rune forms can get a bit whacky, especially *sowilo like you've mentioned.

I agree that separate pages for Nazi material makes sense. Many scholars seem to love writing about them whereas few talk about their normal usage so it can often swamp Modern Usage discussions. Ingwina (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, to steer things up, maybe a Wikipedia:WikiProject Runic? I saw that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies got merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject History, which seems stupid.

• Sowilo forms is arguably one of the most problematic runes from a glyph perspective, since much overlap: ᛊᛋᛌᛍ = S, ᛋᛌᛍᛎ = C/Z, but letter wise, it can easily be split based on name: Sun (s), Knee-Sun (c), Hard-Sun (x), Lean-Sun (z). Which language to use for said article name is also up to debate, since the aforementioned runes can easily be given in English, and historically wasnt defined by language (Icelandic: knésól/cnésól vs Swedish: knäsol/knäböjd sol, = "knee-sun/kneebent sun"). One can argue, instead of Proto-Germanic hypothetical forms, Old English names should take presidence, since this is English Wikipedia.

ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 05:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That is a bit odd... yep let's have a project like that. When you've made it, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Ingwina (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Runology + Template:User WP:Runology ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 11:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)