Talk:Jēran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Title

of all arguable titles, *Jēra- strikes me as a spectacularly bad choice. So the name may have been either jeram or jeraz. And instead of choosing one, we are linking to a technical linguistic form with asterisk and hyphen? Why not *j(ē₂/æ)ra-(m/z) while we're at it? --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably vecause *Jēra- is what is standard and it's solidly referenced as exactly that. I think you're underestimating our audience - it's hardly an issue if the introduction gives a nice, solid explanation without abbreviations and with proper links. Subsequently, I'll be working with the Elder Futhark articles to bring up their quality from the extremely confusing and largely completely unreferenced mess that they are now. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

hah, that's the first time someone thought I am "underestimating our audience". I am doing no such thing. I am merely saying, linguistic details belong in the article, not the title. Bloodofox, your unilateral changes are not welcome. If you have plans for the "mess" that are the Futhark articles, I will be grateful if you seek consensus for them. I remind you that your history of unilateral "cleanup" of runic topics isn't all glorious[1]. Yes, the rune articles could do with improvement. No, they are not a "mess". It is much that we have a standalone article on each rune already (I dare you to find a general encyclopedia which has that). Information is generally correct and useful. Formatting could be improved. Tell you what, why don't you focus on layout, navigation templates and general prettification for now. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that these edits required consensus. However, if they meet with resistance I am willing to work with it. Dab, I don't think the point is what "other encyclopedias" have and what we don't have - it has no bearing on the quality we ought to have here. If it's not referenced, it needs to be pulled and most of these articles are a big, unreferenced mess. As for the link, that was poor move on my part two years ago, sure, but what does that have to do with these edits? Conversation continues at talk:Runic alphabet. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Dab, the problem here is that you're reverting a referenced meaning which your "superior" version lacks. I am aware of what a stem is, thanks. However, since these articles will get an overhaul soon enough I'll leave your unreferenced version in the mean time. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)