Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Runology
Add topicTemplate:WikiProject Runology
[edit]Template:WikiProject Runology is now available for use. @Ingwina: See ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 14:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Using the Runic unicode-block for article names
[edit]@Ingwina, @Fwinzor i wish to discuss the possibility of using Runic unicode characters for article names, like Swedish Wikipedia: sv:ᚢ, sv:ᛏ, sv:ᛟ. While many articles that feature runes have the template {{Contains special characters|Runic}}, ive never come across a modern data system which does not support the runic unicode block (Unicode 7.0 U+16Fx runes are still rare, but are not important here); frankly, it is the only ancient script ive seen which is supported where others are missing, like Gothic, Hieroglyphs etc.
The pros of using the glyphs is that we do not have to pick between Anglo or Norse names, or use neutral but reconstructed PGmc names over historical names. The reconstructed Proto-Germanic names used as article names for many of the rune articles are fairly flawed, as they are in many cases both old reconstructions (*berkanan is from at least 1932) and assumes/proclaims continous and uniform naming conventions, which is not what we see in later European runic use. Even where the generic sense stays, the name can vary greatly. In short, they are hurtful as primary names (cf. Swedish, where the generic elder rune names are given their modern descendant when available: ᛟ Odal/odalruna, ᛞ Dag/dagruna). A minor improvement has recently been to feature the "*" reconstruction marker in the article name: *Berkanan, *Ōþala, but this also comes with the unwanted effect that the articles becomes case sensetive and cannot be linked directly with lower case *berkanan. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 09:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I can't speak to much for the wikipedia stance on such a name change but I think in terms of actually picking a name it makes perfect sense for all the reasons you say. Ingwina (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I have been thinking over the past few days - I think the issue here is when we have different rune forms. I think splitting between elder fuþark, younger fuþark, Anglo-Frisian fuþork and so on is not great as it would leave us normally with too little on each page and they benefit from discussion together. Which rune form would we choose as the title in such cases? Ingwina (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- My view is that we should treat runes more like letters. So for the same reason we have Alpha and A, we should have similar division for runes, as long as it makes sense. I can't think of any case where i personally couldn't fill out an article with information. There are sound values to discuss with use examples. There are historical shapes and styles. Rune poems and different names (especially for Norse runes). Some characters would be double, like ᛡ for Anglo /io/ and Norse /ᴀ/, but that is common for many letters, like đ. But i also see the purpose of grouping articles. One solution could be to have a big article for Runic development, which honestly could potentially be more useful if done right. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 07:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- I have been thinking over the past few days - I think the issue here is when we have different rune forms. I think splitting between elder fuþark, younger fuþark, Anglo-Frisian fuþork and so on is not great as it would leave us normally with too little on each page and they benefit from discussion together. Which rune form would we choose as the title in such cases? Ingwina (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)