1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, to be archived |
Please leave a message below (I archive the talkpage when it becomes unwieldy, so check out the archive or the talkpage history if you want to see an older discussion).
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Question
I appreciate the lock that you made on Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated but why an infinite block? It was only one user who made that vandalism.
- It had been protected several times before, and a request for infinite was requested.--Berig (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week | ||
Your improvement of the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your ongoing efforts to create concensus. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate Berig to be Editor of the Week. A veteran editor and administrator active since the earliest days of Wikipedia, Berig has a Ph.D. in linguistics and is an educator by profession. He has created and substantially contributed to hundreds of articles, particularly on subjects such as Germanic peoples, runology and the Viking Age. Significant contributions by Berig include the articles Greece runestones, Midvinterblot and Norse funeral. These topics are complicated and often controversial, and Berig's participation in such discussions frequently contributes to the establishment of a consensus based on sound conclusions.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Narke--A Province of Sweden |
Berig |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 18.2021 |
Veteran editor, administrator and educator with a Ph.D. in linguistics. Created and substantially contributed to hundreds of complicated and controversial articles on varied subjects such as Germanic peoples, runology and the Viking Age. Berig's frequently contributes to the establishment of a consensus based on sound conclusions. |
Recognized for |
creating consensus |
Notable work(s) |
Greece runestones, Midvinterblot and Norse funeral |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well done, Krakkos, well-deserved indeed :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Congrats my friend! Alcaios (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
- The user group
oversight
will be renamed tosuppress
. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Photo-Rosengaten zu Worms
Hi, your photo upload from the German university, Walther von Kerlingen und Hartunc.png, is not "duel of Walther of Kerlingen and Hartunc".
It is "Walther von Wasgenstein" and "Dietlieb".
Perhaps it seems unimportant, but it is a vital detail. Thanks. 120.29.109.137 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Both "Walther von Wasgenstein and Walther von Kerlingen are names for the figure we call Walter of Aquitaine here on Wikipedia. I'm having trouble reading the manuscript rubric that captions the depiction in the image, all I can make out is "Hie stritet walth???? "zur burgen?" What I'm reading as "zur burgen" is "in Burgundy" and refers to the location in Worms. I actually can't find a d in the line. There is an H though, and Gillespie tells us that Hertnit von Riuzen fights against Walter in the Rosengarten. I believe the end of the rubric line reads "Harttunc(?) von ryeszen" - Hartung and Hertnit are used interchangeably sometimes. That being the case, the image caption at Rosengarten shouldn't say he's fighting Dietleib.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to back up my points: The Heidelberg Rosengarten is version Version DP, AKA Vulgat-Fassung D according to Heinzle Einführung in die mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik, pp. 170, 172. In his summary of the combats in this version, Heinzle says
(p. 177).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Walther von Kerlinc (Frankreich) gegen Hartnit von Riuzen
- Just to back up my points: The Heidelberg Rosengarten is version Version DP, AKA Vulgat-Fassung D according to Heinzle Einführung in die mittelhochdeutsche Dietrichepik, pp. 170, 172. In his summary of the combats in this version, Heinzle says
Berserker
Hi Berig: I am almost up to my limit of edits for this month, so rather than edit Berserker, I'm putting this concern here. Since I know you're busy, I'll widen the circle by pinging Bloodofox and Krakkos. The same IP with the image concern above has inserted a long passage in the Berserker article on non-Norse wolf-associated warriors. I think it's misplaced and inadequately referenced, and it also requires copyediting including in the references (anyone copyediting it should be sure to note the editor has fallen into the trap of our bewildering coverage of Hagen), but I'm not sure there shouldn't be mention of some of it somewhere in the article. The IP previously posted to the talk page: "Why are all these articles Norse-Centric? When the Norse are the least of them?" Looking at that, I was also struck by other concerns raised on the talk page, particularly about our use of a citation to Anatoliy Liberman, none of which had received a response. So I think the article merits a look to see whether its coverage of varying theories (if only "bare" vs. "bear") and its range are adequate based on available sources. (I notice that Simek is solidly on the side of "bear" and masked warrior cults in his handbook, Lindow less so in his but still paying almost no attention to "bare", but a lot of work derived from Höfler has been called into question, and since we are citing Liberman we should represent his view adequately. I think the article should remain Norse-centric, though, and there may be OR in the IP's parallels; but OTOH they may feature prominently in the foundational German-language work on berserkir and ulfheðnar, in which case we should mention them in that context at least. (So there are my tentative views.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven’t looked at the citations, but I suspect most of the stuff he added from MHG epic is at best synth and at worst OR. I’m not sure Walter of Aquitaine growling (where? When?) makes him comparable to a berserk without secondary lit.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should add: I'm mildly suspicious that this IP may be a proxy (he geolocates to... the Philippines) of Tympanus who was banned for trying to push what I would term a "Dietrich-von-Bern-Truther” sort of conspiracy, especially at Dietrich von Bern and Thidreks saga. The IP's edits track with that, even if he hasn't touched Tympanus's main concerns, but see for instance this draft on a figure I've never even heard of: [1]. The name appears to be 19th reconstruction by Grimm of a figure called Viliver in the Thidreks saga who is possibly connected to a bear named Wisselau in a text called "Van den bere Wisselau" that is either in Dutch or Low German, and completely unconnected to the Dietrich material. My suspicion is that if I were to look into work of Badenhausen (the fringe figure that Tympanus was pushing and may be identical to), I would find out that Wildeber is an important figure there. Also Tympanus has been trying to encourage others to make edits on his talk page for a little while now (see [2], [3], [4]. He's clearly desperate to edit and the last time he tried just as his own IP he got caught right away.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are more familiar with him than I am, so I suggest you report him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- He is indeed using a website connected to the discredited theories of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg, the patron saint of the movement pushed by Tympanus. I wonder though: are his PAs at Krakkos and Bloodofox’s talk pages, and now at the talk page for his draft of Wildeber as well as here, enough to warrant some sort of block?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- (Risking one more edit this month, hoping I don't have any deleted; after the new month starts in UTC I'll do some reverting and improving if I have time.) I see Tympanus was indeffed by Drmies. I'm always reluctant to advocate indeffing subject-matter experts, and he's right to note on his talk page that there are academics we should have articles on, many with articles on other Wikipedias (I just ran into no:Just Bing last night). However, the IP editor has indeed left nasty messages not only here but on Bloodofox's and Krakkos's talk pages, despite being informed about personal attacks as well as about OR (links for the anon's benefit). Block evasion is also sufficient grounds for indef-blocking, once abuse brings it to light, and although checkuser is not going to publicly link an IP to an account, and therefore I don't think SPI would be useful, I'd like to point to the previous message at Talk:Berserker also mentioning Wildeber, from 120.29.110.105. That IP also edited Reinhold, like the current one, and was blocked in January by Mz7 for personal attacks and as a sock of Walther Faunus. Walther Faunus was originally blocked last December by 331dot as a sock of 120.29.108.137 (later modified by Primefac), and his style of invective is lower and less fluent in English, but the "Wiki Gangs" header on User talk:120.29.108.137 is the same terminology we are currently seeing. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- He is indeed using a website connected to the discredited theories of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg, the patron saint of the movement pushed by Tympanus. I wonder though: are his PAs at Krakkos and Bloodofox’s talk pages, and now at the talk page for his draft of Wildeber as well as here, enough to warrant some sort of block?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- You are more familiar with him than I am, so I suggest you report him to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Yngvadottir; I hope this finds you well. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time with this complicated message, which traces at least two stories the plot of which I am not familiar with. I think I know you don't like indef-blocking editors, but I'm glad you found some redeeming qualities in my indef-block of Tympanus, whose talk page access I just revoked. I think the question or suggestion here is that those 120 IPs are socks of Tympanus? They are not: Tympanus is out there in ... well, in a very different part of the world, and there's nothing that I can see that would confirm they're the same person working the proxy-line. Anyway, I blocked the IP range for a bit; it's not the first time, and I hope you don't think that too drastic a measure. I'm sorry y'all are having to suffer yet another internet harasser; please feel free to call on me if blocks, semi-protection, or...well that's all the tools I have. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Drmies. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to file an SPI concerning the two named editors, but Ermenrich has already suggested the possibility they're using a proxy. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
And now for something completely different
(I've requested rotation of the second one.) It's at Lövåsen, Tanum, which is on Google maps and there is actually an image of it linked there. This slightly different painting of the drawing is how it appears in P.V. Glob, The Mound People, Fig. 55, p. 141. The image in Jan de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, 2nd/3rd ed., Volume 2, p. 125, Fig. 20, far right (with much thicker horns, a thicker penis, and blocky rather than curved hammer heads) corresponds to that in Terry Gunnell, The Origins of Drama in Scandinavia, Fig. 15, p. 42, where it is attributed to Gelling and Davidson, The Chariot of the Sun (which I've failed to find after tossing the house today). The RAÄ have a pdf of a report with photo linked at the bottom of this page. Discussion I've seen so far is in the context of cultic cattle masks; the thinner-lined version includes the rear appendage in a form that is readily interpretable as a tail. </geek> Yngvadottir (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing me this striking petroglyph, Yngvadottir. They remind me of the more modern concept of the goat-headed horned god.--Berig (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
- Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
New editor
Do you have any opinion on HernánCortés1518? I noticed him because of this edit to Talk:Grimm's law and I see you've encountered him elsewhere. He looks like he may have some WP:CIR issues, with English among other things, in addition to POV pushing.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I do have strong opinions about his activities.--Berig (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't see any discussion there at the moment.--Berig (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- He restarted it again. I am not so used with the meta on enwp, but diffs showing there are a consensus for removing the npov might be good to add to show you have a huge support. Sorry for this. Br Adville (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support :-)--Berig (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- This guy looks like a good case for ANI to me. The amount of text at Vikings (much of it apparently in response to himself?) is quite disruptive and beyond wp:IDONTHEARYOU.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He received a 3-year block on Swedish Wikipedia a few days ago so he is focusing on English Wikipedia now.--Berig (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He appears to be casting aspersions about you abusing your admin functions at various places around the encyclopedia now. I'm always sort of amazed when users with problematic behaviors are completely unaware that their behavior is problematic. Definitely trying to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about Vikings. I'd take him to ANI myself, but I'm not directly involved and that place is never pleasant.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He received a 3-year block on Swedish Wikipedia a few days ago so he is focusing on English Wikipedia now.--Berig (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- This guy looks like a good case for ANI to me. The amount of text at Vikings (much of it apparently in response to himself?) is quite disruptive and beyond wp:IDONTHEARYOU.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support :-)--Berig (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- He restarted it again. I am not so used with the meta on enwp, but diffs showing there are a consensus for removing the npov might be good to add to show you have a huge support. Sorry for this. Br Adville (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI: [5].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
How do the linguists spell this?
Writing a response at Talk:Heimdallr (thank you for the compliment, by the way), I found we spell the deceased gentleman's name Geirröðr, but I've got used to seeing Geirrøðr (I've just made a redirect). I know there is some more or less arcane distinction between the two vowels; how far is it a settled matter that his name takes ø in Old Norse? I've just drawn an absolute blank on Icelandic Wikipedia, where I thought I might at least find a quotation (they apparently don't even have mention of Eilífr Goðrúnarson; I searched with and without the u). Is this something like ô vs ǫ́, differing typographic conventions, or should the article be moved? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: There was variation of course. Actually, not many people are aware today that before the 20th c. there was no fixed spelling for names in the Western World, something that troubles genealogists. Geirrøðr/Geirreðr consists of geirr ("spear") + friðr ("peace and love"). The last element friðr could also turn into -ruðr (from þrúðr, "strength"), so that is why we also find Geirruðr. We also have the form Geirrauðr, where the last element looks like -rauðr ("red"). Since -(f)riðr, -(f)reðr, -(f)røðr and -ruðr appear as variants, and can get mixed up with -rauðr, it is not surprising if it can also be spelled as -(f)rǫðr (i.e. (f)röðr), which in later Old Norse (and in modern Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish) was pronounced the same way as the spelling (f)røðr. To add to the mess, a spelling -(f)rauðr could have been an alternative way of writing -(f)rǫðr (cf. Danmǫrk which is spelled tanmaurk on one of the Jelling stones), because a ligature of a and u existed as an alternative for ǫ. It is the same mess with the name Sigrǫðr/Sigrøðr/Sigruðr/Sigrauðr, which is the same name as Sigfried. If there is a "correct" form of the name it is Geirfríðr ("spear peace, spear love").--Berig (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- PS, ö, ô and ǫ are just three ways of writing the same letter in ON.--Berig (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. I thought ô (which to me looks like a MHG long o) was being used for long ǫ (ǫ́) because the latter doesn't render for many people? (I finally tracked one down to copy and paste). I hadn't known what the 2nd element in the jǫtunn's name was; I see what you mean about it could be construed as different words, and I've seen the au spelling. But his name seems to be consistently spelled with ø by the modern English-language scholars I'm using; isn't there something involved about different sources of the umlauted vowel? Ah well, I guess I'll leave the article alone then :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- PS, ö, ô and ǫ are just three ways of writing the same letter in ON.--Berig (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yngvadottir, you’re right, two vowels have fallen together, have a look at Old Norse#phonology. The two have actually developed differently in the continental Scandinavian languages than Icelandic and Faroese.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
Modern Icelandic for Norse mythology articles
I noticed you reverted the Modern Icelandic pronunciation I added to Andvaranaut. You made the point that the other descendants of Old Norse (the modern North Germanic languages) are not also listed. Point conceded, except that Modern Icelandic forms and pronunciations are still appropriate to include in Norse mythology articles relying mainly on works codified in Iceland, such as the writings of Snorri Sturluson. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure about that, because the works weren't written in Modern Icelandic. Modern Icelandic is an anachronism in the context, and rather irrelevant. BTW, not even Snorri Sturluson thought he was writing in an "Icelandic language", because he believed he was writing in "Danish".--Berig (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm...I do recall reading that "Danish" was a general nomenclature for all of Norse for a certain time. In any event, I know there wasn't an idea of a distinct "Icelandic language" at the time—they spoke Old West Norse, as also in the Faroes, Shetland, Orkney and mainland Norway. But nevertheless, the compilations came from Iceland, correct? Even if notionally they were a version of broader Norse mythology, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am at all mistaken), it was through an Icelandic literary lens that these canonical versions were compiled and later reintroduced to mainland Scandinavia. They may be Norse mythology, but in a narrower sense, they are Icelandic literature, and part of the closely-held indigenous cultural heritage of Iceland in a way that is not quite as direct where Denmark, Sweden, etc. are concerned. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly there is a need for the modern Icelandic nation to re-appropriate their heritage on WP, and you do so by adding pronunciations that are 700-800 years later than those that resulted in the spelling of the names.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there's less certainty about this than before we had this discussion. All right, perhaps there needs to be more modern cultural relevance than geography.
- But I went this route because it has been my understanding that the modern Icelandic connection to their medieval literature is more intimate than in other modern Nordic cultures, owing largely to Iceland's unique linguistic circumstances. Whereas languages in Scandinavia proper mutated more drastically over the centuries, with significant changes in morphology and orthography, Icelandic morphology has changed extremely little since the settlement of Iceland, and Icelanders can still easily read Old Norse literature untranslated, and when read aloud they use modern pronunciation. Spelling differences between Old Norse and Modern Icelandic are slight. And combined with the fact that this literature was also compiled in Iceland by people from Iceland, it only seems natural to include a modern Icelandic form. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been to Iceland, so I can't compare mainland Scandinavians and Icelanders. However, if you live in mainland Scandinavia, it is not literature in book shelves that remind people of Norse mythology, but place names (have a look at a map of mainland Scandinavia and you may see names of Norse gods across the map), the weeks of the day, common personal names (Tor, Torbjörn, Gudrun). What people understand as a "Norwegian", "Swedish" or "Danish" name is effect a name from Old Norse and most people know that. Everybody, in mainland Scandinavia has learnt about Norse myths in school, so I doubt they feel less connected than Icelanders. However, the connection between a modern country and the old myths is not important here. It is how relevant the pronunciation of modern Icelandic is to an English language speaker who is mainly interested in "how the Vikings said it".--Berig (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually from Micronesia. I'm just a well-educated heavy reader of a wide variety of academic topics. But your point is noted—I may have acted naïvely. I won't object to you removing modern Icelandic pronunciations from various Norse mythological topics. But I take it they're still relevant to sagas of Icelanders topics, correct? - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see any problem if you give the Icelandic pronunciation in paragraphs where there is more in-depth treatment of Icelandic names, but as you may have noted I only removed the Icelandic pronunciation once. Personally, I only find the Icelandic pronunciation interesting, because it has changed so much. Swedish and "New" Norwegian are much closer to how Old Norse was pronounced.--Berig (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought you'd removed it twice. Sorry. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds about the addition of Icelandic pronunciations because I originally studied Old Norse at Oxford, where Icelandic rather than reconstructed pronunciation has traditionally been used; I believe the reasoning was that since a modern language with very few changes existed, it made more sense to teach students to use that language's pronunciation. I don't know whether there are other institutions with the same policy, or even whether that's changed at Oxford since my time. But there are or were surprising regional differences in Icelandic pronunciation for such a small country, and in addition when I saw these pronunciations being added, they seemed surprisingly precise. I am not a linguist, although I can read basic IPA, and I have been puzzled before by Wikipedia's IPA policy—we appear to mark /r/ in British words as if it is pronounced—but I thought overall policy was to provide a fairly broad descriptive transcription? It may just be me; some languages commonly require IPA symbols that are fairly unusual elsewhere :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if only the modern Icelandic pronunciation had been given, I may not have reacted, but as an ON pronunciation was already given it seemed anachronistic. As for the IPA, there is the phonetic transcription within brackets [...] which strives to be precise and the phonemic within slashes /.../ that is more generic. I believe the choice depends on the contributor and the felt need for precision. Some languages may also have unusual pronuciations. However, IMHO, for British pronunciation, the /r/ should not be indicated unless before a vowel or showing local pronunciation. British, or at least English English has a standard pronunciation.--Berig (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was the non-rhotic thing where I tangled with the linguists. I know we're doing phonetic, but there are a lot of glide and stress features where it's a matter of judgement, as I understand it ... but probably my ignorance more than anything else :-) I do agree we need reconstructed Old Norse pronunciation first and foremost. I can't name any other institution that teaches the Icelandic pronunciation by preference, although it's served me well (including in enabling me to make people fall about laughing, rather than give me blank stares, when I was in Iceland). And I'm old enough that even Oxford may haave since changed to reconstructed. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Icelandic pronunciations could be put back, in proper context. Whether it's part of a paragraph, or whatever appropriate circumstances. I can't say what those circumstances would be, but it's doable. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are still articles relating to modern Iceland, and more recent Icelandic matters that lake pronunciations, such as Northeast (Icelandic constituency).--Berig (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Icelandic pronunciations could be put back, in proper context. Whether it's part of a paragraph, or whatever appropriate circumstances. I can't say what those circumstances would be, but it's doable. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was the non-rhotic thing where I tangled with the linguists. I know we're doing phonetic, but there are a lot of glide and stress features where it's a matter of judgement, as I understand it ... but probably my ignorance more than anything else :-) I do agree we need reconstructed Old Norse pronunciation first and foremost. I can't name any other institution that teaches the Icelandic pronunciation by preference, although it's served me well (including in enabling me to make people fall about laughing, rather than give me blank stares, when I was in Iceland). And I'm old enough that even Oxford may haave since changed to reconstructed. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if only the modern Icelandic pronunciation had been given, I may not have reacted, but as an ON pronunciation was already given it seemed anachronistic. As for the IPA, there is the phonetic transcription within brackets [...] which strives to be precise and the phonemic within slashes /.../ that is more generic. I believe the choice depends on the contributor and the felt need for precision. Some languages may also have unusual pronuciations. However, IMHO, for British pronunciation, the /r/ should not be indicated unless before a vowel or showing local pronunciation. British, or at least English English has a standard pronunciation.--Berig (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see any problem if you give the Icelandic pronunciation in paragraphs where there is more in-depth treatment of Icelandic names, but as you may have noted I only removed the Icelandic pronunciation once. Personally, I only find the Icelandic pronunciation interesting, because it has changed so much. Swedish and "New" Norwegian are much closer to how Old Norse was pronounced.--Berig (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually from Micronesia. I'm just a well-educated heavy reader of a wide variety of academic topics. But your point is noted—I may have acted naïvely. I won't object to you removing modern Icelandic pronunciations from various Norse mythological topics. But I take it they're still relevant to sagas of Icelanders topics, correct? - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been to Iceland, so I can't compare mainland Scandinavians and Icelanders. However, if you live in mainland Scandinavia, it is not literature in book shelves that remind people of Norse mythology, but place names (have a look at a map of mainland Scandinavia and you may see names of Norse gods across the map), the weeks of the day, common personal names (Tor, Torbjörn, Gudrun). What people understand as a "Norwegian", "Swedish" or "Danish" name is effect a name from Old Norse and most people know that. Everybody, in mainland Scandinavia has learnt about Norse myths in school, so I doubt they feel less connected than Icelanders. However, the connection between a modern country and the old myths is not important here. It is how relevant the pronunciation of modern Icelandic is to an English language speaker who is mainly interested in "how the Vikings said it".--Berig (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly there is a need for the modern Icelandic nation to re-appropriate their heritage on WP, and you do so by adding pronunciations that are 700-800 years later than those that resulted in the spelling of the names.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm...I do recall reading that "Danish" was a general nomenclature for all of Norse for a certain time. In any event, I know there wasn't an idea of a distinct "Icelandic language" at the time—they spoke Old West Norse, as also in the Faroes, Shetland, Orkney and mainland Norway. But nevertheless, the compilations came from Iceland, correct? Even if notionally they were a version of broader Norse mythology, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am at all mistaken), it was through an Icelandic literary lens that these canonical versions were compiled and later reintroduced to mainland Scandinavia. They may be Norse mythology, but in a narrower sense, they are Icelandic literature, and part of the closely-held indigenous cultural heritage of Iceland in a way that is not quite as direct where Denmark, Sweden, etc. are concerned. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Berig: You're welcome. I must admit that there's a margin of error in the pronunciations I give, though. I think they are mostly correct (at least to the First Grammatical Treatise), but there are some micro-guesses involved. For instance:
- As long as you know the morpheme boundaries, it's not difficult to tell which a/i/u vowels are stressed (and thus [ɑ, i, u]) or unstressed (and thus [ɑ, e, o]). This distinction became meaningless not long after in the middle of the 12th century when both distinctions merged into [ä, ɪ, ʊ]—the a/i/u spelling is from the much more recent Standard Normalization of Old Norse which spells words to reflect how the unstressed short vowels were pronounced after the merger. This is why I indicated certain ing as [eŋɡ] and certain ung as [oŋɡ], etc.
- Indicating g as [ɡ] vs. [ɣ] allophones is also something of a guess. I always indicate it [ɡ] at the beginning of a morpheme or when doubled or after n, l or r—I'm not certain how wise this is. To some degree I'm taking cues from Icelandic, but I also indicate non-initial gl and gn as [ɣl, ɣn], just as I indicate non-initial fl and fn as Old Norse pronunciation: [vl, vn], because the fortition of these consonants in Icelandic didn't happen across the rest of the North Germanic languages.
- I'm generally assuming h is [h] just about everywhere it occurs, even in hl, hn and hr as [hl, hn, hr], and I'm making no assumptions they were already coalesced in the 12th century as [l̥, n̥, r̥]. They genuinely may have been, but that feels like unverified original research. The only exception is that I indicate hv as [xw], to reflect its lasting strong frication and later occasional fortition to kv in North Germanic languages. This may be naive. It could be [hw], or [ʍ]. But [xw] seems like "no harm done".
- Certain instances of r as [z̠], which as we already know we can't be more specific about (it could have been [ʒ, ʑ, ʐ], etc.). This is a bit of a tough one. I realize it was probably already [r] in Iceland in Snorri Sturluson's time, but indicating it as distinct where we know it was in at least part of the Norse-speaking world, seems wise. The other problem is knowing which r is actually [z̠], since the references and provided Old Norse spellings generally use only unmarked r spellings. My entirely improvised rule of thumb is, if the r comes immediately after a consonant at the end of a morpheme, or if the r is part of a case ending that disappears in other cases, or if it had been z in Proto-Norse or Proto-Germanic, then it's probably safe to indicate it as [z̠]. Again, I don't know how wise this is. It's entirely possible a lot of my IPA pronunciations may require correction.
- I make no assumptions about devoicing, aspiration or palatalization of consonants, so I indicate t as [t], tt as [tː], kj as [kj], etc.
- I follow orthographical patterns where available. For special reasons, the diphthongs ei, ey and au are [ɛi, œy, ɔu]. But I don't indicate nasalization if not indicated in the spelling. And I realize that a lot of these spellings, just like the unstressed a/i/u, could reflect a phase after some of the mergers (and complete loss of phonemic nasalization) following the First Grammatical Treatise, and that, for example, some instances of later 12th century á [ɑː] are actually merged from FGT-era ȧ́ [ɑ̃ː], ǫ́ [ɔː] or ǫ̇́ [ɔ̃ː], in which case that á is probably actually post-merger [ɒː]; compare FGT-style Vǫluspǫ́ [ˈwɔloˌspɔː] vs. late 12th century Old Icelandic Völuspá [ˈwɵ̞lʊˌspɒː]. Still, I indicate á as [ɑː] unless I have more information.
- Sometimes, if a Norse spelling just doesn't seem specific enough, like if it only uses ö instead of ǫ or ø and I can't find a more specific reference (or if it can never be more specific because it's from after the late 12th century), I decide not to enter an IPA pronunciation at all, since I don't want to accept such a margin of error that the pronunciation I enter ends up being outright poorly-guessed misinformation.
- I've been working on User:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Evolution of Icelandic vowels (still unfinished and being polished) to help me in this, and hopefully to help improve articles on the wiki later on, as long as I can adequately match the table data with the references.
- Gilgamesh (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the pronunciations are great, and it strikes me how conservative the pronunciations of Norwegian and Swedish have been. However, are there references you could provide? Sooner or later you'll see an editor (usually a new account) adding a "ref needed" tag after them. I won't, because I can see that they are realistic and written by someone who knows what they are doing.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not many explicit references per se, no. Such a reference would need to document the words phonologically and break them up into morphemes. Some articles have etymology sections that do this at least to some degree, but in many cases I'm haphazardly consulting dictionaries, usually Wiktionary. But once the morphemes and phonemes are known, IPA transcription becomes relatively trivial and methodical. The Old Norse article has a phonology section, and I've found those external references on the history of Icelandic vowels back to the time of the First Grammatical Treatise.
- And again, it doesn't necessarily help that some of the most important corpuses of Old Norse texts were compiled in the later Old West Norse period in Iceland, and the primary reference for my Icelandic vowels chart (linked from my user page project page) describes a chain-shift of almost all the vowels before the 12th century was even over. So the consideration becomes, do we use reconstructed IPA from the early 12th century (First Grammatical Treatise), the mid 12th century (the beginning of the major vowel chain shift and the complete loss of nasalized vowels), the late 12th century (the ǫ–ø merger and resulting phonemicization of palatal stop consonants), or the 13th century (the elongation of vowels before ng/nk and the æ–œ merger), etc.? Do we maintain up to three or four different IPA transcription systems even just for Old West Norse depending on the decade and generation of authors? For the word ørǿfi/ørœfi (desert/wilderness), the progression goes early 12th [ˈørˌøːve], mid 12th [ˈø̞rˌø̞ːvɪ], late 12th örœfi [ˈɵ̞rˌœːvɪ], 13th öræfi [ˈɵ̞rˌæːvɪ] (Modern Icelandic [ˈɵɞːrˌaiːvɪ]). I stick largely just to the First Grammatical Treatise phonology of the early 12th century because it's extremely well-documented and relatively uncomplicated to transcribe.
- And yes, it does seem like Swedish and Norwegian are among the most phonologically conservative of the modern North Germanic languages. But the drastic simplification of case endings means they are far from grammatically conservative—that distinction seems to go to Icelandic, which preserved most of its grammatical sophistication by retaining most of its stressed and unstressed vowel distinctions even as the vowels themselves shifted more drastically. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I know Swedes who have studied Icelandic and say that it is great for understanding how Swedish works. Swedish is more conservative than Danish and Norwegian, and contains a lot of oddities, fixed expressions and irregularities that are fossilized parts of Old Norse grammar. They make sense, though, when compared to Icelandic grammar. They are still there, but have lost the motivation that they once had.--Berig (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the pronunciations are great, and it strikes me how conservative the pronunciations of Norwegian and Swedish have been. However, are there references you could provide? Sooner or later you'll see an editor (usually a new account) adding a "ref needed" tag after them. I won't, because I can see that they are realistic and written by someone who knows what they are doing.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
IP at Ostrogoths
69.47.30.96 is busily removing every mention of the word "Germanic" over at Visigoths...--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have warned him.--Berig (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's still at it at Ostrogoths (main focus of the vandalism), including adding false info such as that the root *auster- is Latin...--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Recommendation of source for article on Germanic figures
Hello, Berig. I saw that a group of wiki editors are working on a collection of articles about personages of Germanic history and legend. May I present another source, by Lotte Motz, which, to my mind, may increment your efforts?189.122.57.144 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Motz, Lotte. "New Thoughts on Dwarf-Names in Old Icelandic". In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien 7, no. 1 (1973): 100-117. https://doi.org/10.1515/fmst-1973-0107
Space
Hello. [6] I do not want to revert your edit because of a newline. The newline is not a mistake, see WP:REDCAT and MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text. Christian75 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I have added one now.--Berig (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Its not a big deal - It's more because of next time.... But thanks :-) Christian75 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hurray!
Great work finally getting the lists moved to main space! As you might have noticed I've been a bit distracted by Germanic peoples lately, and I'm also working on some non-Wiki projects of my own, so sorry about leaving you alone there at the end. I think there are still some places, especially from the Thidreks saga (and maybe also important rivers of legend?) that should be added to that article and I'll try to get around to it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I understand. This my last day of vacation, so I want to get this off my mind.--Berig (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
List of figures in Germanic heroic legend
Just removed a bunch of URLs that go by the names temporary, or single use, or AWS. See WP:AWSURL -- GreenC 15:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Dnieper
Hi Berig,
Do you think it might be possible to semi-protect Dnieper? The article is constantly being edited by IPs and accounts without any other edits who change the name to Dnipro (even though Dnieper is not the Russian name and the river begins in Russia and flows through Belarus, this seems to be a big thing among Ukrainian nationalists...). Putting semi-protection on it would put a stop to most of that.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed that the only Old Norse name we have on the list of figures beginning with Ulf- is a translation of German Wolfhart. Odd that there are wolf- names in MHG and OE but not ON, don't you think?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)