User talk:Wiglaf/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:archive 1 (Feb 03 2004 - Aug 30 2004), archive 2 (Aug 30 2004 - April 18 2005), archive 3 (April 18 2005 - May 30 2005), archive 4 (May 30 2005 - July 6 2005), archive 5 (July 6 2005 - August 13 2005), archive 6 (August 13 2005 - September 11 2005), archive 7 (September 12 2005 - October 28 2005), archive 8 (October 29 2005 - September 28 2006)

Contents

[edit] Project

This is a table I am preparing for the article on Norse mythology. I have taken it from the Swedish version of Wikipia and I am translating it into English before I integrate it. Table of Norse mythology

[edit] I'm so sorry

Förlåt att jag inte hört av mig - jag fick ditt mail men la det åt sidan eftersom jag är helt uppbokad med jobb just nu, och sen hittar jag det inte igen. Har du lust att skicka ett nytt? Nog borde vi väl kunna hitta någon dag innan ... vintern kommer? // OlofE 11:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Winter depression

I hope you don't mind, but I have merged your article on winter depression with seasonal affective disorder on the basis that this is the current name of the disorder. --CloudSurfer 19:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is OK. I should have read the article more carefully. I thought it just treated any kind of seasonal mood swings. :)--Wiglaf 19:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good to hear. By the way, if you come across any more great Scandanavian references please add them. --CloudSurfer 07:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Truvor and Sineus

Hey Wiglaf, I know Askold and Dir, but who are Truvor and Sineus? Am I confusing different books? Adam Bishop 15:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam, they are the lesser known "brothers" of Rurik. The names only appear in the Chronicle so they are probably based on a misunderstanding. Askold and Dir were not related to Rurik. I should have changed it long ago, but they are so unknown that I missed them :-)--Wiglaf 15:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yews

Hi Wiglaf - yep, Taxus baccata is only hardy down to between -25°C to -30°C, I saw a few killed even in Britain in the severe 1981/82 winter when temperatures got down to -27°C in a few 'frost hollow' locations in Britain, widely -28 in Denmark, and around or below -30 in southern Sweden. Historical records indicate some much more severe winters during the Little Ice Age, notably 1739/40, 1715/16 and 1708/09, toward the end of a long period of generally cold weather 1400-1800; the same cold climate period that killed the viking settlements in Greenland in the 1400s and greatly lengthened Alpine glaciers. - MPF 14:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Old Icelandic characterrs

Thank you Wiglaf for your answer and good luck for your dissertation. [[User:Gangleri|Gangleri | T | Th]] 22:04, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Thanks Gangleri!--Wiglaf 22:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Norse sagas

Thanks much for the compliment. I thought I knew Norse mythology quite well, but am constantly being surprised at what I'm finding out, things that hardly anyone writes about. But the Ættartolur stuff is almost finished now.

I am not altogether happy with my experiments with showing the variant forms of names. I've been ignoring names like Odin and Thor and so forth. Should I? Also, perhaps the Old Norse forms would be better at the bottom with the variant anglizations. They do rather interrupt the flow. But if I did that, I would like to somehow mark them out specially, to be able to mention at the begining of that section that Old Norse forms appear fomratted in some particular way. But I can't think of a pleasing way to format them distinctively or mark them off distinctively that satisfies me. I really need one way to represent genuine Old Norse normalized forms, one way to represent modern Icelandic forms, one way to represent Anglicized forms, one way to represent modern Swedish forms, and so forth. Possibly abbreviations in small captital would do to break up lists into appropriate sections.

Jallan 05:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the naming, it is very hard. As I use Swedish works of reference, I am restricted to Swedish forms and as often as I remember, I try to look for a common English form. Perhaps, the best solution would be to stick to the Old Icelandic forms all the way (except for Thor and Odin).

That, of course, would break Wikipedia rules about using common forms in English. Actually, the forms used in the style I am following are really the Old Icelandic forms with th for þ, d for ð, and case endings removed except when when this would produce a vocalic ending. The value of following the two current guides/dictionaries to Norse mythology in English is that they can be justified as using English forms of a kind that is common enough and which, from the purpose of those books, can be looked as the proper encyclopedic forms in English. As, to Swedish forms, one of the two translations of the Heimskringla into English uses Swedish forms (or what look to me to be at least partly Swedish forms) and the other one uses diacritics but uses th for ð and renders ö as o. So neither of these match Old Icelandic forms or the model I am following. Yet, I feel, as you previously mentioned, that we shouldn't be producing articles only for scholars who can easily figure out what values to try on searches. An ordinary user should be able to a search on Athils and find all articles about Adils or Aðils in the that search, and perhaps even those mentioning Eadgils.

Could you please have a look at Wulfings and Helgi Hundingsbane and tell me whether they are NPOV. I have summarized them from a Swedish book from the 1920's.

I don't have time to do a complete look at the moment. Wulfing looks not bad however. But Helgi Hundingsbane looks rather POV towards a particular historical reconstruction. Legends of Sigurd do describe events in the 5th century, but does that mean Sigurd lived then, or lived at all? You can't use legendary chronology that way, trying to locate, for example, Dietrich von Berne, Etzel, and Ermanaric based on the legends. And there is no particular reason to think that the connexion of Siegfried/Sigurd to the Völsungs is necessarily earlier or more authentic (whatever that means) than the connexion of Helgi to the Völsungs. That the legends of Sigmund are known to the author of Beowulf also says nothing about when they were created and whether they were founded on historical events and when those historical events occurred. Beowulf describes the feud between the Heathobards and Danes, but in Norse sources Froda and Ingeld (Fródi and Ingjald) become Danish kings, sometimes reigning before Halfdan but in Saxo much later. In Hrólfs saga kraki, Fródi is the brother of Halfdan and what in Beowulf seems to be a series of wars between peoples in Norse tradition has become a family feud, something like a civil war. The same opposite movement might have occurred in the Helgi Hundingsbane tradition. If there were Ylfings in what later became East Götaland, they would likely be confused and equated with the Gautar, just as the Heathobard traditions became Danish, and even Angle traditions became Danish in Saxo's accounts. The chronological placement of Granmar and Hjörvard in the Ynglinga saga may be historical but may also be an artifact of legendary chronology. Sigurd as father of Aslaug the wife of Ragnar Hairybreeks fits one common legendary chronology, which would of necessity place Helgi and his foes Granmar and Högni about the time that the Ynglinga saga brings in Granmar and Högni. Your author's POV seems to be that these traditions are historical, and played a part the other way, that when Helgi was made son of Sigmund the Völsung, that resulted in chronological placment for the Völsung traditions. Perhaps! But see my article Víkar for the vageries of legendary synchronisms. I will have to look more closely at this Helgi Hundingsbane data. What the article is missing is a comparison with Helgi Hjörvardson and with the third Helgi Haddingjaskati who appears in Hrómundar saga Gripssonar, all three supposed reincarnations of the same person, and so also their Valkyrie lovers reincarnations of the same person. The historical reconstruction is to some degree taking over the legend.

Since you're an administrator, and can revert easily, would you like to keep an eye on the Heruls article? An anonymous user keeps insisting on removing the accounts of Jordanes and Procopius. I am so tired of reverting those changes that I am taking a long break from it.

I see that the anon has begun talking. In any case, it seems one of the admin rules is one is not supposed to use the revert button on anything but genuine and obvious vandalism which this is probabably not. But I will keep an eye on the article. The article would probably be improved and made more interesting with the introduction of apparent problems with the traditions that Procopius and Jordanes presents. But that improvement requires that the article first present what Procopius and Jordanes stated, then introduce any difficulties that those statements present. We certainly do not want any seamless theory that ignores what little early tradition we have, however false that tradition might be.

Jallan 04:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More on Helgi Hundingsbane and so forth

It was the next day, that I realized that I could ask you, since I am thinking of leaving Wikipedia.

I won't say, "Don't go", because I don't know the details. You've done a lot of good work that will remain. And this is project where people can participate at any time to the exact level at which they wish to, a place where one can jot down one's own notes on various things one is interested in for others to appreciate, at least such notes as are encyclopedic. And then one can hopefully see them corrected or bettered. And if worsened by a later editor, well the originals are still in the history. And it is so nice to be able to actually change errors in material one reads! There is not need to be a regular contributor.

Yes, the purpose of the book is to try to find the kernels of real history behind the legends. I did not realize that I had transposed that POV into the article.

I got that impression from the way the discussion concentrated on the possible historical elements and ignored the entire Valkyrie lover element found in the tales of all three of the Helgi figures. The result is something like a discussion of Beowulf which concentrated on the political relationships between Geats, Swedes, Danes, and Heathobards and ignored Grendel and the dragon.

Great, you seem to know a great deal about this legend. Concerning the dating, the author is pretty believable. He was once one of the foremost scholars. That does not mean that he was right, though.

If you are doing a book about possible history underlying legends, then that kind of POV is quite expected and not at all disreputable. You should put forth your theories, not hold them back. But I've probably been rendered immune to attempts to extract fact from legend, in part by reading seventeen or more different accounts of the supposed historical Arthur, some by very competent scholars, but all different. The arguments themselves are often worth the reading and worth repeating. But then other top scholars present other arguments equally strong for competing theories. I often point out that someone reading the Nibelungenlied would never be able to extract the truth about characters like Gunther, Etzel, Dietrich, and Ermanaric. (Of course Heinz Ritter claims that the legends, at last as presented in the Thidrek's saga are mostly history, and that the characters have nothing at all to do with Gundahari, Attila the Hun, Theodoric the Goth and so forth, but are historical princes of Saxony and surrounding regions, though ones not actually mentioned in surviving history.)

There is support from both history, linguistics and archaeology, and the no evidence argument is quite spurious as it can be claimed of many facts presented in history writing. One could just as well ask for conclusive evidence against the Scandinavian origins.

Exactly. We don't know either way. Archaelogy and linguistic study can very seldom prove individual pieces of history, but usually doesn't disprove it either. (Again and again when archaeology does seem to prove or disprove something, suddenly some archaelogist will show that the entire system dating is wrong or that a new style of pottery or kind of grave did not mean a new people in the area, but just a new style of pottery or new burial customs.) But traditions about origins are also often confused, and ancient historians, like many modern ones (and like many editors in Wikipedia) were quite ready to fill in blanks with whatever dubious information they could find. (The Ættartolur traces Attila the Hun's kin back to Scandinavia.) Perhaps the puzzle pieces don't fit and never will, but there is nothing gained by hiding them when nothing has been proved to the point of general consensus. And in any cases, statements from ancient historians are worth citing just because they are said by ancient historians. Even if statements are shown to be incorrect, they have the value of evidence against those who would put total faith in everything that an ancient historian claims and are often valuable for showing what people formally believed. I will continue to keep an eye on the Heruli article.

Note: I entered this two days ago, but somehow accidently put it on my own talk page. Reading it over now, it may seem like I'm being rather harsh about the Helgi Hundingsbane article. I actually don't think there's much wrong with it at all. The theory is a reasonable one, certainly not at all crank. And that the article needs more work can be said of most articles in Wikipedia. But you asked about POV and that's what I talked about. As it stands, the article is accurate and informative, including geographical information that I was not aware of (or at least don't remember being aware of) and is no more POV than many Britannica articles or many other articles within Wikipedia.

Jallan 02:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 00:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Gothic, it's cool

I don't mean to be emphatic about the classification of Gothic. It's certainly ok to classify it with N Germanic. I just wanted to point out that the question is unresolved, and Holtzmann's law also widely considered parallel, or areal, rather than genetic. dab 08:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden

I know. But I assume most of the (modern) "territory of Sweden" was not even settled. Much less was it "Sweden". I know it's stupid, and I will try to leave the issue alone now. I was quite annoyed yesterday, when Dan managed to make you quit, and I felt responsible to defend our consensus (not my version) of the article. The funny thing is that he is really arguing in the direction of my original stance, only with much more crudity that I could ever have mustered. I do hope some people will be attracted by RFC. dab 08:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sigh. thanks. I just decided to follow your example and walk away again. teaches me not to become attached to WP. the system has great strengths, but too often you are not writing articles, leading learned disputes with peers, but just haggling with the clueless. But after all, WP doesn't have to be a premier resource on the Vikings. See you around ;o) dab 15:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] *lol*

[1]

  • "A Viking was a male member"
  • "Before the Icandic sagas were written in 19th century, vikings is known from two historical approved sources"
  • "the victims refered to those vikings as etnichal groups"

especially the "male member" cracks me up! Maybe we can have him blocked for pornographic vandalism ;o) [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 15:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scandza

fwiiw, it's a http://www.swipnet.se user. I suppose I could do a MySQL query on Dan's edits to find out his IP number, but queries seem to be disabled at the moment. How about you just ask him? He is so convinced of the validity of his edits that I doubt he would want to remain anonymous... I do believe Dan's sense of being on a mission to "correct" WP (especially English WP, with his rather below par grasp of the language) is a problem. Would you be prepared to open an RFC page on him? I can't be bothered to pursue the case on my own, but I would do it in a joint effort. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 18:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking, well, maybe wait a bit. RFC takes time and energy, and he doesn't do enough damage right now to justify the effort, I think. Let's see... [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 08:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Det är inte jag, men tack för intresset, jag finner skrivarens synpunkter intressanta och godtagbara.Dan Koehl 10:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

disturbing... there must be a lot of people like that in Sweden, then... (maybe the Vikings were pricks after all? ;o) [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 10:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ing

That's right! Do move the template. So far I was just linking to existing articles that deal with the individual runes. We could either include details on the runes there (other cases are Þ, Wynn, Tyr), or make articles specializing on the individual runes. I have a section on each rune in rune poem too, and I am not sure how to distribute the material. I just figured someone has to clean up the rune article. cheers, dab (T) 12:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry -- I thought I had modified my own version, otherwise I would have commented. Maybe you can add something along these lines to the "rune" section at Aesir? The point is that the AS rune poem does not refer to a god, but rather to "mouth". Now, os is Latin for mouth of course, but I don't know what to make of this. The Icelandic poem really seems to be the only source for the "god" name (while the Gothic name points to another name altogether). dab (ᛏ) 19:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] defamation

delete or put it into a Magyar nationalism article, as proposed by Dab.--Wiglaf 10:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) Magyar nationalism? You mean Antimagyar defamation page?

So you think that the information in the page you wrote would defame Magyar nationalism?--Wiglaf 10:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You defame Hungarians with your antimagyar remarks. Your pervert hate is remarkable. Antifinnugor 19:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] your arrogant comment on the uralic page

You're apparently not a linguist, and I don't see why you waste so much time persisting in dictating the content in this article.--Wiglaf 11:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are apparently not a nice person. Well if you don't see, it is your problem. Wikipedia is not for linguists, but should provide understandable information for anybody. I cannot dictate anything, and also do not have the time for that, since all my remarks get immediately deleted by as arrogant and as little knowledgeable persons, as you are. You obviously do not know, what three-way distinction or dual mean, but hopefully, those, who wrote them, know it. If not, then the article needs to be urgently reworked from its grounds. Antifinnugor 19:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
hello Wiglaf -- we seem to share the attention of yet another charming edit-viking. Have a look at User_talk:Dbenbenn#afu_rfc -- cheers, dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] why did you redirect the critics page?=

Antifinnugor 18:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I could not find your argumentation on the talk page. If you do not write anything there, the indications will be removed. Thanks, Antifinnugor 19:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) I hope i'm not putting this in an inconvenient place... anyway, i'm attempting to document all the germanic peoples and languages. the more i research, the more complicated i learn this whole subject is. it seems that sometimes it's hard to determine what is a language and what is a dialect. i'm under the impression that as well as a proto-germanic language, there was also a proto-germanic people.

one of my main areas of research right now is the english language, and it's history. very slow going. Gringo300 11:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Man tackar! I'm especially into adding etymology, where the net version of the SAOB is a great source, unless the critter in question is listed after "talkumera" :D Salleman

As i write in the text following the image, it is from http://www.home.no/micropop/overtro/page12.html , and so I labeled it "Fairuseunsure" i accordance with similarly accuired images I've seen on Wikipedia.

[edit] User:Dbenbenn/Antifinnugor draft

Hi Wiglaf, Please see User:Dbenbenn/Antifinnugor for a nearly-final draft. Make any changes you see fit. I'll move it to RfC in a few days. Dbenbenn 19:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Short temporary editing block

Hi, I'm afraid I'm going to have to block you too, for 3RR violations at Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups. I don't like having to do this, but the Wikipedia policy is very clear on this:

Sysops may block users who violate the three revert rule by reverting any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.

Specifically, you did the following edits:

  • 18:34, 25 Dec 2004 Wiglaf - 1st Revert to Redirect
  • 19:12, 25 Dec 2004 Wiglaf - Added {disputed} tag
  • 19:13, 25 Dec 2004 Wiglaf - Added {POV} tag
  • 19:39, 25 Dec 2004 Wiglaf - 2nd Revert to Redirect
  • 09:30, 26 Dec 2004 Wiglaf - 3rd Revert to Redirect
  • 10:02, 26 Dec 2004 Wiglaf - 3th Revert to Redirect (limit exceeded)

I'm going to make your block shorter, as i) you were less egregious (only 4, as opposed to the 7 Antifinnugor racked up), and ii) you were only trying to put in place community consensus.

However, in future, please bring violations of the 3RR to the notice of admins, at WP:AN; don't try and tire the person out by reverting. OK? Thanks, and sorry I had to do this.... Noel (talk) 19:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: Please don't mark reversions in an edit war as "minor changes". That label should only be reserved for minor things that really aren't in any way possibly controversial. Noel (talk) 19:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Wiglaf (but I'm sure your thesis approves :) and your block also serves a good cause, namely demonstrating that TINC, and that we are not after afu because we hate his guts, but because we like an npov WP. dab (ᛏ) 19:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, me too. I didn't like having to do it. Only two more hours, please be patient! Noel (talk) 22:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm very glad to hear that. Noel (talk) 14:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
hi Wiglaf, I got your mail last night, after you were unblocked. Was this due to some delay in the mailing system, or were you somehow re-blocked? (you are obviously unblocked now). Yes, I unblocked you manually, and too late, due to this annoying Wikimedia 1.4 bug (and Noel couldn't, because he was in a blizzard, apparently). sorry. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor is live. Dbenbenn Dbenbenn 19:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Old Norse Names (Again)

I have reworked the names of the poems in Poetic Edda, formerly Elder Edda, to fit with the conventions tentatively established at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English) and am informing those who have commented on such things in the past. I hope what I have done pleases you. I intend increasingly to go through with standardizing names as indicated, unless there really are objections. It is time the mess was cleaned up, following some convention or other. Please reply at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Old_Norse/Old_Icelandic/Old_English) if you have any feelings on the matter, especially if they are negative. I don't have any great preference, but want to get something started to clear up the maze of redirects and strange spellings that currently afflict the Norse mythology articles. (Actually, many of them aren't strange, it is just that they don't agree with one another.) As you have mentioned, you generally use Swedish sources and often accordingly use Swedish spellings. Do you have any objections to me generally changing those spellings to more normal English adaptations of the Norse originals? Jallan 04:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finno-Ugric RfC

Wait while I put that in my Retorts collection. Wiglaf, you're a master of aphorism.:-) --Bishonen | Talk 09:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what's in a word

hi Wiglaf — I appear to find myself on another sort of linguistic crusade... I invite you to vote here (some background is here and here). dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

of course, I did not expect you to necessarily vote in my sense, and would have seriously reconsidered my approach with you dissenting. Goodbye, and good luck with your break, I am trying to tear myself free, too. dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halloj!

How's the dissertation coming along? Keep at it, maybe we'll both have some more time to enjoy the sun once it shows up again.... Anyway - Altunastenen; got pictures, see discussion on norse mythology, they're kind of dark (bad photo weather for that stone) I'll see if I can touch them up a little, but not right now. Skalman; hope you saw my message before you left! Good luck with your work, we'll talk later // OlofE 09:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation Gangleri

[edit] hi Wiglaf!

Don't stay too long, or you'll be sucked in again! thanks for the suggestion -- I made the maps only yesterday, and put them up so that I might collect criticism. Obviously, the non-historical dialect boundaries are pure speculation, and I attempted to use the browner tones the more unattested the languages are :o) I'll certainly paint the Scythians red, though. Do you have any other suggestions? I am particularly uncertain about "Germanic Iberia" in 500 AD (that's supposed to represent the Vandals), the northern boundary of the Celts in 500 BC, and the expansion of Indo-Aryan in India in 500 AD. I'm also unsure about Turkey in 1500, I expect most of Anatolia was still speaking Greek and Iranian, but I wanted to hint at the arrival of the Turks. best regards, dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anund Jakob.jpg

Discussion moved to Image talk:Anund Jakob.jpg#Copyright.

[edit] Image:180px-Ottar03.jpg

Could you provide a source for Image:180px-Ottar03.jpg, and replace the {{unverified}} tag with a more appropriate tag? (such as {{pd}} or {{gfdl}} if you created the image yourself.) Information on image copyright tags can be found here. Thanks, LeonWhite.

[edit] decorations

you are really too kind. I'm really beginning to feel at home and part of all this, and should maybe expand my minimalist user page. I still hope to see you around from time to time — Dieter 09:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tried, but couldn't

Sorry, Wig, if you're under the impression that I'm an admin, you're wrong. --Bishonen|Talk 19:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old norse translation

I did what I could, see my talk page, if you have any specific enqueries regarding the text feel free. –Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:15, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

[edit] Celts

of course, I wouldn't want to deprive the celts of their more northern haunts. In fact, I was going to improve the map, I think the mouths of the Danube should not be painted celtic, and the celtiberian territory is not contiguous with the gallic in some maps I have seen. The territory in Asia minor is an unshapely blur, and should maybe be removed altogether (I have no idea how they were distributed there, or if there was even any "celtic territory" at all). regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got the blank map from [2]. Keep in mind that our map is supposed to be diachronic, i.e. it doesn't give the situation at any given date, but the maximal/combined expansion between 800BC-400BC. So unless the celtiberians just hiked across the Pyrenees and on to Portugal in a rush, I suppose the celtic territory would at one time have covered Pyreneen areas. maybe not as much as shown at present. It's of course speculative in any case. I considered adding labels (names of neighbouring peoples, such as the Dacians in that "salient" near the Black Sea), and maybe arrows for major migrations (especially an arrow from Gallic to Celtiberian territory, an arrow indicating migration to Britain, and another one pointing to Asia minor). I'll be grateful if you add some information firmly grounded in encyclopedic publication, in any case, since my sources are slightly hacked together, I'm afraid. regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
good idea, I imagine the 200 BC distribution is known with much higher certainty! cheers, dab (ᛏ) 20:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
the map is at http://leuksman.com/misc/europo-senteksta.psd.gz , i.e. it is gzipped layered photoshop format. I can send you the flattened blank map if you like. He has a flattened png version here, but there are modern boundaries. dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...not to mention the person who actually drew it; I uploaded it to Image:Europe plain rivers.png. dab (ᛏ) 07:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the maps

very nice, although I have a few points:

  • scale them down! no need to keep the map in original size...
  • does the Nationalencyklopedin really tell you that La-Tene == Proto-Celtic?? 5th century is much too late for that (and I said so in Celt). Isn't the original La Tene area a bit large? In any case it seems larger than my yellow blob.
  • Insular celtic and Lepontian have the same colour? Were they both 'infiltrated by La Tene'?

Maybe I'm confused because it is a purely archaeological map that shows the distribution of the La Tene style. That is of course not equivalent with the distribution of "the Celts". The linguistic spread must have been something like

  • 800 BC Proto-Celtic (Hallstatt?)
  • before 500 BC: spread to Iberia/Britain, separation of Gallic/Insular Celtic/Celtiberian
  • 400 BC split of Gallic/Lepontian
  • 300 BC as your final map, probably already a split of Insular Celtic in Goidelic/Brythonic

Your "3rd century" map in any case is much better than mine (your areas are more accurate). I would just paint Lepontic similarly to Gallic (as it is a Gallic dialect; probably just one dialect of many, but the only one we are lucky enough to find in early inscriptions)

I may just be confused between archaeology and linguistics at the moment. What do you think, the Celts article is a bit long already, maybe we should put the detailed maps on History of the Celts or similar? dab (ᛏ) 06:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


another thing, the reasons some parts of the rivers are blue, while others are grey in the map I uploaded is because some parts were part of a national boundary. I was going to fix that, but forgot. You may want to equalize river colours before you churn out too many maps :) dab (ᛏ) 06:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Norse - Old/Runic Swedish

I see you've been active with a lot of Scandinavian history and mythology. There's a problem with some terms right now, since there seems to be some uncertainty whether Old Norse is actually the langauge spoken after the 9th century or not. According to Nationalencyklopedin's articles on Swedish, Swedish is divided into four distinct periods.

Right now Old Norse is defined as both a common name for the Scandinavian medieval languages as well as the origin of the same langauges. Which one should it be? Do you know of any good sources on this issue? Peter Isotalo 23:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In Sweden the issue is not as straightforward as in Norway's case.

Norway was not straight forward either. The kingdoms were united and de-united at frequent intervals, etc. I have just listed the petty kingdoms I know have existed. The articles for each kingdom may have more information as to when they existed, their rulers etc. -- Egil 10:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)