Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runic alphabet/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Runic alphabet

partial self-nom. I cleaned up the article, and added material to the point of re-exporting some to Older Futhark to take weight from the article. I think it's reasonably close to FA standard now & am prepared to act on suggestions for improvement. One thing may be that the images, while informative, should be 'unified' (i.e. they look hacked together). Another point is that the article makes heavy use of Unicode's runic alphabets codepage, and may not be rendered correctly on older systems, but I think this is not actionable (and I imagine most recent systems will support them). dab (ᛏ) 16:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Nice article with professional illustrations. Squash 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The article looks very nice, but for some reason I cannot see the runes themselves. I think this could be a major problem for the article (unless it's confined to my computer (Windows XP + Firefox 1.0), but I fear not). Jeronimo 10:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I use Firefox 1.0 under GNOME on Fedora Core (Linux) and I can see the runes just fine. In other words, it's your operating system.. Squash 10:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Firefox under debian also works fine. 68.237.137.57 05:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the issue of Unicode glyphs cannot be ignored. I have checked this article on multiple different systems, and it doesn't display correctly half of the time. Even on next generation systems, you have to install the correct fonts to see it (for example, Mac OS X, known for its excellent font set, is unable to display the glyphs with a standard install - you have to install extra fonts). I suspect the situation is similar on other OSs - I know it is on Windows, for one. I will support this article if a short notice about glyphs is put on top of the page, possibly linking to a suitable freeware set of glyphs, or when the most important glyphs (ex.: in the part about translitteration) are converted to images. After toying around with my font manager, I got the fonts to display correctly. This article now has my support. We can't do much more than add a note at the top. Phils 10:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I can't see the runes either (using IE 6.0}, and we can't require our readers to change from the vastly most-used browser to read our product. RickK 00:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I also use Firefox 1.0 under windows XP ... they dont show here either, I also tried it under IE but they dont show there either. This should be fixed ASAP, I see no reason that if we can have the WikiHiero syntax we cant create a WikiRune syntax. I think as a prerequisite to this becoming a Featured Article we need to impliment a WikiRune syntax.  ALKIVAR™ 00:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • we do have wikirunesyntax: it's called Unicode (why create new standards?). Btw, what is WikiHiero syntax? dab (ᛏ)
  • found [1]. wow, someone went to a lot of trouble here, very nice (btw, someone should take pity on Hieroglyph, it's a horrible uncategorized stub). You see, the difference is that there is no Unicode standard for Egyptian hieroglyphics yet. There is a proposal so far [2], and once there is an official standard, Unicode hieroglyphics should map to HieroWiki somehow. Runes, otoh, already have an official Unicode assignment, and their implementation (some 80 signs) is peanuts compared to Hieroglyphs (some 2000 signs). dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Except the problem is that it is not cross platform functional by default, A good 70% of web users (IE still claims 70% of the market) cannot see the runes in the article except the images. This workaround would work despite platform or browser. As such (and as you stated yourself a mere 80 signs) this would be a rather simple fix that would have a large benefit.  ALKIVAR™ 23:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
yes, I agree, it would be nice to render them as images. I'm just saying, we don't need to invent a syntax, we'll just render the unicode glyphs, and serve the image instead of the unicode entity. dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
perhaps you dont understand what i'm talking about then... because that is EXACTLY my point. serving the image instead of the unicode. just done in a style like the heiro's, heiro format is <hiero>X-X</hiero> i'm talking about being able to do <rune>gar</rune> to display 1 gar, or <rune>gar-ger-gar</rune> for a sequence of gar ger gar.  ALKIVAR™ 23:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
you don't understand what I'm talking about: You say: let's implement something that serves an image for <rune>f</rune>. I'm saying, no, it's better to implement something that serves an image for the correct, official &#5792;, or the option to choose if you want an image or ᚠ. There could also be a wiki-specific syntax, additionally, i.e. <rune>f</rune> and &#5792; would be equivalent, resulting in either an image or ᚠ. But since that's about a software upgrade, this discussion doesn't belong here anyway, and I'm happy to let this nomination rest until we have some solution along these lines. dab (ᛏ) 15:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is good, but most ppl cannot see the thing it is discussing, this is a major fault. I'd also like to see the runes, but I get the '?' - using Mozilla 1.7.5, and I configured my comp to see Japanese and many other alphabets. Unless this can be fixed, perhaps we should consider using images instead of text? The current top note does not give a good solution for solving the problems - I donwloaded and isntalled the new fonts from the note...now what? :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I can't see the runes either on Firefox 1.0, it's probably because I don't have a proper Unicode font installed, but most readers of the article will not one installed either. Maybe someone who has a Unicode font installed could take a screenshot of the runes and post the image to the article.Jeff8765 01:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
ok, fine. I accept the article will not be featured because people's browser do not render the runic unicode codepage. They are rendered out-of-the-box on my Firefox-on-KDE-on-Debian system, and I thought implementation would be more common, but I realize this implementation may be a reflection of Linux' geeky DNA. The images are there to help people who do not see the unicode runes (they would be superfluous, otherwise). Now, our policy, or at least common use, is to use correct Unicode, regardless of whether the majority of browsers supports it yet. We have the option built into wikimedia to render as graphics mathematical formulas, for people who cannot render math-xml. It would be an option to render as graphics (server side, automatically) uncommon unicode glyphs, until their implementation is more widespread. As I said above, I consider this objection unactionable, because it should be solved consistently, WP-wide, and would require a software update. But I agree that the article is not very nice without the runes, so I guess I'll have to withdraw the nomination.
But, since we are here, are there any other suggestions, based on, you know, article content? dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Poor grammar. At random: that can impossibly all be due to chance; Roman legions, that started to migrate out of Israel. Mark1 05:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the "legions" relative pronoun: granted (and changed). The other is part of a correct sentence (not 'poor' but arguably 'involved' grammar): "There are some similarities to other alphabets of Phoenician origin that can impossibly all be due to chance". But I'll go and re-read the rest of the article now. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, the first example is not correct. There's quite a lot of this: Their angular shapes are usually interpreted adapted to the practice; There are some inscriptions containing clues for medieval belief . The whole article really needs a copyedit by a native English speaker. Mark1 01:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I smoothed out the roughest bits now, but feel free to help. dab (ᛏ) 15:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Considering the average quality of articles on Old Norse stuff on Wikipedia this is actually pretty good. It still isn't thorough enough or well-referenced enough to merit FA-status. Maybe I'll work on this in the future. -- Haukurth 02:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
imho, anything more thorough would have to go into specialized articles, like Elder Futhark: There can also be Younger Futhark, Anglo-Saxon Futhorc and Dalecarlian runes articles, you know. Also, note Template:Runes where articles on individual runes are linked. dab (ᛏ) 15:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll be a bit more specific. This is a fairly large subject and I think this article either needs to be longer or to have a better sense of proportion. The parts on the magical and modern uses of the runes should not cloud the essentials. The reader needs to get a better sense of the widespread use of runes as a fairly mundane writing system in common use in Scandinavia for hundreds of years. Now, the article doesn't neglect that but I think it needs to privilege it more. Leaving aside this complaint I'll address some specific accuracy questions in a new comment below. -- Haukurth 23:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Lovely article, I will certainly support when I can see the runes. I don't see them in Mozilla 1.6 for Mac OSX, nor in Safari 1.0.2 (those are the penultimate versions, don't know whether the very latest ones would work). Very frustrating. Welcome back with it when the rendering problem has been solved, dab! Meanwhile, I have a comment, not for content but pedagogics: I find the Origins section a bit confusing, but this can probably be pretty easily fixed by someone who understands it fully (=not me). The first theory of the origin of runes, of descent from a Phoenician alphabet, is so strongly privileged ("from which they are probably descended", "cannot possibly all be due to chance" ) that it comes as a surprise when other theories are also presented as possibly viable. Logic seems to demand some adjustment of the relative endorsements. Also, it's less than helpful to mention the third theory by name (the "West Germanic hypothesis") and not the others: for the ignorant reader this means staring at the second and third paragraph for a while, trying to figure if they're about one or two theories (the answer does emerge). If the theories all do have pet names, it might help to use them, I think. The relation of the "popular field for scientific speculation" paragraph to the theories already presented isn't clear to me. Does it refer to all theories except the Phoenecian descent, or only to nutjobs like Rudbeck? (It's OK, he won't sue.) If to all (since, again, the Phoenician theory sounds irrefutable), could it come earlier? Bishonen | Talk 22:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Accuracy problems. The quotations from Hávamál have a faulty translation attached. In the first strophe the reader would probably guess that it's the spear that's dedicated to Óðinn but this is an impossible translation. It needs a comma after the word "spear". As for the foots of the tree I'd prefer it had roots as in the original. Now, this translation is actually misquoted from Carolyne Larrington. As well as quoting Larrington accurately her name should probably be noted somewhere. For a comparison of the accuracy of various English translations of this part of Hávamál see my external article here: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/reader/runatal.html

I also have a problem with this clause:

"Runes are a popular field for scientific speculation, and many other theories have been advanced, e. g. a claim by Olaus Rudbeck Sr in Atlantica that all writing system orginate from proto-runic scripts."

Since this is the last theory mentioned in the origins chapter and the word "scientific" is attached the reader might get the sense that the Atlantica is a recent scientific work and not 17th century fantasy.

For the record I can see the runes without problems on a recent version of IE. -- Haukurth 23:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)