Talk:*Walhaz

Re, move to wiktionary
I disagree. If there is not enough material here yet, the article may be merged with Etymology of Vlach, which is essentially about the same word/concept. dab (&#5839;) 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mirrored image
The picture of the coin is mirrored as is the faximile upon which it was created. As much as contributions are very much welcome, the contributors dealing with ancient scripts should pay more attention, I suppose.

Asterisk as a letter?
From the article:
 * With the Old Germanic name *Walhaz, plural *Walhôz, adjectival form *walhiska- ...

I'm not aware of the asterisk being (or representing) an Old German letter, and there is no reference to such on the Old High German page. There is also no footnote on this page that the asterisk might refer to. What does this asterisk represent here? --ΨΦorg (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In historical lingusitics, an asterisk before a word denotes the fact that the word has not been attested, but has been reconstructed by linguists based on its descendants. --Jfruh (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wales in Portuguese
Can someone tell me why "País de Gales" (literally translated: "The Country of Wales") for "Wales" in Portuguese? And so, consequently there is the term "galês" (or, alternatively, "a língua galêsa") for the "Welsh" language? Would there be any connection or related pattern to the name "William" traditionally being translated as "Guilherme" in Portuguese? Bepp (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure but it French, anyway, the letter W in other languages often becomes a G (i.e. William - Guillame). Perhaps it is the same phenomenon? --Jfruh (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Course it is. Even the De Gaulle family seems to have ancestors called Van de Walle, which is Dutch. Ad43 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Dutch
The article currently claims that "Welschhinkel" and "Welschkann" are the Penn Dutch names for Turkey and Maize respectively and that is should be literally translated as "French" grain. I'm no expert but surely the proper translation would be foreign grain as 1. maize is not french and never has been and 2. the article goes into significant depth to explain the origin of this word as essentially relating to things "foreign" to a particular group of people, the Germanic tribes. Alex McKee (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true that, as the article indicates, "welsch" in origin means "foreign," but it's possible that in Switzerland in the 16th century (the origin of Pa. Dutch) the meaning had narrowed to mean the Romance-speakers in France. If maize entered Germany via France, that would explain the meaning. The question is, what is standard Pa. Dutch for "French"? --Jfruh (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Italian language corn/maize is called mais or "grano turco", literally "Turkish wheat". Etymologically it's called like that 'cause of the literal translation ""wheat of the turkey" (the bird) as far as I know. Scientist or Philosopher (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Welsche
As a native German speaker I may perhaps be considered as a kind of "native informant". I this role I'd like to suggest to treat the word "Welscher/Welsche" as a historic word. I have never in my 52 years of earthly life come across anybody using that word, either in written or spoken German.

G. Berkemer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.56.187 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're only an informant for the region where you live, at best. There are definitely regions where the word "welsch"/"walsch" is still used, even if all of them may be outside Germany (there's no reason to exclude Austrians, South Tyrolians, Swiss and Pennsylvania Dutch). Always be careful and don't generalise from your own limited experience – I doubt you've been to everywhere in the German Sprachraum. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also a native German, and the word welsch is not only historical but also a more sophisticated and a little pejorative word to describe a Frenchman or an Italian.13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Ampsivare (talk)


 * Sorry, Florian, but G. Berkemer is right. Historical forms are always available for people who want to make humorous usage, methinks, but that doesn't make them current. And as for dialect forms, you have to identify them as such. Telling the English-speaking user that Welsche is standard German usage is really misleading. Besides, we shouldn't be too snippy with newcomers to Wiki. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If a word is still used in several varieties of German (not only in dialectal German, but also Standard German, for example Swiss Standard German), it can hardly be called "historical". That was my whole point. If G. Berkemer is oblivious of that fact, it doesn't change the fact, however much G. Berkemer may be a native speaker of German. German is a multicentric language, just like English. If the term fall for autumn sounds archaic to a native speaker of English, that doesn't make the term historical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Old English was the language of the Anglo-Saxons
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Old English is the language of the Anglo-Saxons. So the meaning of wilisc in the introductory paragraph should be changed to 'foreign, non-Anglosaxon, Cymric'. The Dutch reference doesn't mean any person from England which contained Cymric people.203.161.75.138 (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Romans or foreigners
If "welsh" means "foreigner", why didn't the Anglo-Saxons call the Scotts and Picts as such? Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. I have no answer. -- Ad43 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because "Welsh" (and similar words) meant not simply "foreigner", but "Romanised foreigner". See also History of the term Vlach.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the Anglo-Saxons and Germans care whether a foreigner was romanised or not? Did it matter? Foreigners are foreigners after all. If you want to call a foreigner but a specific ethnonym you call him by that specific ethnonym not by the name 'foreigner'. It does not make sense. There is no equivalent for 'romanised' in the Germanic languages after all. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. But do you really know if the Isle Saxons used the term Welsh in the days of yore in the same way as they do now? As for the same term variously being used for some specific people by some at some times and for foreigners more generally by others at other times, I will say I am reminded of the Gaelic terms Gall and Lochlannach, and I am sure there are slurs used by American and Australian Saxons that have gone from being specific to general or general to specific. Maybe in some Saxon dialect at the time it was felt Welsh had some specific connotation that was not universal; or maybe they encounted the British first and called them Welsh and then felt there was some need to differentiate the Picts and Scots. Closely related cultural group, or even different people in the same cultural group, maybe at slightly different times, can get very different ideas as to the exact meaning of a word. I'm reminded of all those who insist that Gaelic isn't spoken in Éirinn... 121.127.200.1 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did differentiate between different cultural backgrounds. From John Davies, A History of Wales, p.69: "It is often claimed that the word 'Welsh' is a contemptuous word used by Germanic-speaking peoples to describe foreigners.  Yet a glance at the dictionary of any of the Teutonic languages will show that that is not its only meaning.  'Welsh' was not used by Germanic speakers to describe peoples living to the east of them; to the English, walh-stod meant an interpreter, but they had a different word for a translator from Danish.  It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized; other versions of the word may be found along the borders of the Empire - the Walloons of Belgium, the Welsch of the Italian Tyrol and the Vlachs of Romania - and the welschnuss, the walnut, was the nut of the Roman lands.  This recognition of the persistence of the Roman tradition is striking, particularly when it is placed alongside the continuance of the Brittonic language and its successor...."


 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Davies is reconsidering the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. He says: "It is often claimed." He doesn't seem to buy into the definition of 'Welsh' as 'foreigner'. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read it again. He is stating that it is often claimed that it is used as a contemptuous word for foreigner, when that is not its only meaning - it is a word used for Romanised foreigners.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He says:"It would appear that 'Welsh' meant not so much foreigners as peoples who had been Romanized." He doesn't say "Romanised foreigners" he says "Romanised peoples". Surely, for the Germans "Romanised peoples" were foreigners, but you cannot make up a term on your own just to win the argument. But then why would 'walh' shift from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one ('Romanised peoples'). Can anybody explain that? Is there another word for 'foreigner' in Germanic languages by the way? You need to explain why 'walh' was not applied to other foreigners. If a word is not used in practice with a meaning hypothetically assigned to it, then this word means something else. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't "need to explain" anything - I'm simply quoting a reliable source. But perhaps you could explain your opinion - unsupported by any evidence that I've seen - that the term "'walh' shift[ed] from a vague definition ('foreigner') to a specific one..."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does Davies mention 'romanised foreigner'? In the article 'walha', it is said: "Thus, by Germanic speakers this name was generalized first onto all Celts, and later onto all Romans." But at the beginning it is said:"Walh (singular) or Walha (plural) (ᚹᚨᛚᚺᚨ) is an ancient Germanic word, meaning "foreigner", "stranger" or "roman", German: welsch. The word can be found in Old High German walhisk, meaning "Roman, in Old English wilisc, meaning "foreign, non-Anglo-Saxon, Cymric", and in Old Norse as valskr, meaning "French"." From where did the definition as foreigner come? Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

french diphtong "au" from Latin incomprehensible?
saltare > sauter; falsus > faux; salvare > sauver; alter > autre; 118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) 118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.143.95 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Late Latin *assaltus > Old French assault > English assault; Late Latin *caldaro > Old Norman-French cauldron > English cauldron (French chaudron)Nortmannus (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a very old section, which doesn't need further discussion. garik (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Walhalla or Valhalla
I am wondering if Walhalla or Valhalla (Old Norse Valhöll) also derive from Walha?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't derive from Walha. Valhöll is a composite word made from Valir which means 'slain, slaughtered' and höll which is 'palace, hall'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumahess (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Title and introduction of the article
There is a conundrum here: The article is about one word attested in many different forms in many different languages, but all of them ultimately, historically go back to the same proto-form *Walha- (stem) or *Walhaz (nominative singular). However, what should the article be named? I tried to fix the intro and thought of moving the article, but I'm not sure how to proceed in such a case. Should we give the article the title Walhaz even though that is a reconstructed form? Given that the articles for the runes and some other subjects, such as Germanic deities, also use reconstructed forms, for example Wodanaz, this possibility should be canvassed, but use in this area is terribly inconsistent in Wikipedia. In any event, Walh (singular) and Walha (plural) is not proto-Germanic or even simply "Germanic" or "ancient Germanic" (which doesn't exist as a unified language; you simply cannot quote unitary "Germanic" or "ancient Germanic" forms, just like you can quote Latin or reconstructed proto-Romance but not "common Romance" forms), it's simply Old High German, and that needs to be clarified. But I don't know how to structure the intro better. Anyone have any idea how to fix this? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize
The section of this article which goes through all the languages needs to be re-organized. Central Europe and Western Europe are not suitable categories. It would be much better to group these linguistically. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Wallis/Valais canton/region?
What about the Swiss Wallis/Valais canton/region? Does it have the same root? Or is it just coming from the Vallis Poenina, the name used by Romans for the upper Rhône valley?--Codrin.B (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The root of "Valais" is the Latin "vallis", with "Wallis" as its xenonym in german language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.33.122 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Organizing the information
I think it would be very useful to have table like this, possible with more relevant columns:

--Codrin.B (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
At one point this article says: “In English usage the words Gaul and Gaulish are used synonymously with Latin Gallia, Gallus and Gallicus. However the similarity of the names is probably accidental: the English words are borrowed from French Gaule and Gaulois, which appear to have been borrowed themselves from walha-. Germanic w is regularly rendered with French gu / g (cf. guerre = war, garder = ward), and the diphthong au is the regular outcome of al before a following consonant (cf. cheval ~ chevaux). Gaule or Gaulle can hardly be derived from Latin Gallia, since g would become j before a (cf. gamba > jambe), the regular outcome of Latin Gallia would have been *Jaille in French.[4][5] This also applies to the French name for Wales, which is le pays de Galles.” At another point it says: “In most Oïl languages[9] and Irish, walhaz was borrowed and altered by changing the initial w to g (cf. English "war" French guerre, English "William" vs. French Guillaume or even English "ward" vs. "guard", borrowed into English from French) resulting in Gaul- : Gaule "Gaul", Gaulois "Gaulish"”. These paragraphs appear to be contradictary. Is Gaul related to Gallia, or not? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The online OED has “ Gaul (the name of the country), < French Gaule, an adoption (phonologically obscure) of Latin Gallia, < Gall-us a Gaul.”. But maybe the cited texts have more detail… Ewx (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * French Gaule means Gallia in Latin and the English word Gaul is borrowed from French Gaule and means both the country and its inhabitants. The similarity between French Gaule and Latin Gallia is a coincidence. Regularly the Latin group /ga/ changes into /ja/ in French : gamba > jambe "leg", gallus > Old French jal, jau "rooster", galbinus > jaune "yellow", gabella > javelle "handful of wheat", etc. French Gaulois means "Gaulish" or "Gaul inhabitants" and is clearly attested as waulois in the northern French dialects and otherwise vaulois see for instance . There is an homonym from another Germanic word gaule "long stick" see  similar phonetic evolution. We cannot think of a literary loanword because the form would be Gall- and not Gaul- like in this scholar loanword gallican "French" Nortmannus (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Factual error on situation in Switzerland
"Welsch" is not used pejorative and is only reserved for francophone regions. The French term "Romandie" and the german term "Welschschweiz" are identical and define areas instead of political territories, since some cantons are bilingual. Corresponding to that, French and german speakers use different names for municipalities, for example "Sion" vs. "Sitten" or "Neuchâtel" vs. "Neuenburg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.33.122 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed incorrect information from Yiddish section
The text that read:

Similarly the corresponding Hebrew root "la'az" or "lo'ez", literally meaning "foreign", is used of the Judeo-Italian languages and of vocabulary of Romance origin in Yiddish. In the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, the translations of individual words into Old French are known as lo'azim.

is both factually inaccurate and irrelevant here. The Hebrew "la'az" -- לעע״ז -- is not a root. It is rather a Hebrew Abbreviation, namely, an acronym for "לשון עבדי עבודה זרה". Its literal meaning is "language of the performers of strange worship" (i.e., the language of idolaters/infidels). It is indeed commonly used to refer to translations of obscure Hebrew words into Old French by Rashi in his commentaries -- though not only in the Talmud but elsewhere as well. As Rashi lived in France, it was natural for him to use French as a reference for rendering complex terms. Being not a proper native root, it is irrelevant to the discussion of the subject of this page. Saparagus (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Saparagus Arbiter

valskr
Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walhaz&curid=1274120&diff=657054077&oldid=654884741 Based on what I can find e.g. http://abdn.ac.uk/skaldic/m.php?p=word&i=90526 and http://web.ff.cuni.cz/cgi-bin/uaa_slovnik/gmc_search_v3?cmd=formquery2&query=Valskr&startrow=1 'French' seems a more supportable interpretation of 'valskr' than 'Gaul'. Ewx (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walhaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206215140/http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/nederlandsetaalkunde/NTKonderzoek-quak.pdf to http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/nederlandsetaalkunde/NTKonderzoek-quak.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
I see that the article has been tagged for some time with:
 * "This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2011)"
 * "This article possibly contains original research. (August 2015)"

It seems to me that the content extends beyond the scope of the article title - and is convuluted. It seems as if the article should be rewritten. My suggestion is to remove all uncited content in sections and build the article from there.

To figure that out, I think it's important to determine if the scope of the article should include words derived from Walhaz.

Are there any thoughts about this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that posts on this page have gone unanswered since 2012 - and was scattered before then. Since most of the article is uncited and an original research question. I am going to delete all the sections, except the Historic persons (notable people may be better and more consistent throughout WP) and the see also section, for instance Vlachs is an important see also. I will look for sources for the historic persons and see what can be added to the remaining article content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am done cleaning up and then adding content to the main part of the article. I am a bit lost how to find a source that the notable people were Walhaz people. Can that be figured out based upon where they lived? Other?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are going to ask a question in talk, you might give editors more than a couple of hours to reply! I do not, in principle, object to a major rewrite of this based on sourced information, but I do have some issues with what you have done:
 * Sourcing: A cursory glance at the two versions of this page shows you have removed 7 sources, leaving only 4 behind. It may be that there are reasons for deleting sourced information, but you say you were just removing unsourced information. This is clearly not the case.
 * Toponyms and exonyms: the whole section has vanished. Inasmuch as there is a subject here, the most interesting thing about it is surely the spread of the term in toponyms.
 * Lead: You have largely delete the lead. Better to leave the lead alone, improved the main and then see how a new summary might be written. Leads do not have the same sourcing requirements as the main, and they are needed to provide an executive summary of the subject.
 * To your question on the notable people, I would start by looking here: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am so grateful that you posted a comment here:
 * 1. Please see the post that starts out "I just noticed..." I looked at the cited sentences in large blocks of uncited content and brought back what I could.
 * 2. Okay. Good. Do you have citations for that section? If so, we can easily add back this section.
 * 3. I am confused about having "largely deleted the lead". See the diff from the way the article looked before my edits and now]


 * I knew I was taking a bold move, but the tags had been on the article for so long and it has been ten years since anyone responded to comments on the talk page. Again, because of that, I am so glad that you came along.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On sources, I don't have much to hand, which is why I have not touched this page. Here is an example of some:, and it again may be a good starting point for all of them. Nevertheless Harper's dictionary is good, but may not be sufficient in itself. So another reason I have not touched this article, despite watching it, is that I believe there may be some dispute about these etymologies. Although I doubt he will thank me for it, I will ping in , who may have more information than I do on this.
 * Great, thanks Sirfurboy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly good in IE linguistics, my expertise lies farther east :) But I will look for sources which cover this word as primary topic (here is one I've found in a quick search). –Austronesier (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another one: a chapter (in German) by Walter Pohl, luckily available online in a book preview. –Austronesier (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a paragraph and perhaps a bit more on page 10 of the document. I Google-translated the part about walhaz and the content states the meaning and use of the word walhaz as the German language developed. I am not sure, though, if I can properly capture the meaning of the translated text and how it would change what is already in the article:
 * "Germanic *walhaz, pl. *walhoz, adj. *walhisk went through the first sound shift from [k] to [h] and should therefore already have been in the time of the Formation of the Germanic have been present.7 Also makes the acquisition as ethnic Classification term only sense as long as Volcae in the southwest of an emerging Germanic language area played a formative role. Only secondarily did the name go to the Romans and theirs subjugated peoples. Similarly conceptual were those of Tacitus and other authors of the early imperial times mentioned Venethi in the east, from which about ahd winida, adj. windisc the german External designation Wenden for the Slavs came into"...
 * Is there someone that can help with this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Pohl's article is perfect not only for the etymology part, but also can serve as pivotal source for the entire article, thus avoiding the problem of WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH, which was a major issue of the earlier version apart from lack of sources. –Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the question of the deleted lead - the old lead was one paragraph that described the page. What we have now is essentially a short main text with no summary, albeit formatted as a lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am still confused. Did you look at the diff? I did not remove a summary. I did insert text, though. What do you think should be done?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The insertion of text and sources into the lead is the problem - it turns a summary into main text. But not to worry about that just now. If the page is being rewritten, we can expand out the main text and get that right and then hopefully a new lead will write itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I brought back the section headings here - which hopefully helps in the meantime.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Notable people
Regarding "To your question on the notable people, I would start by looking here: "

- I don't know how, but I am unable to find anything about notable people in this link - Also, it's a blog and does not appear to be a reliable source

I could be missing something. I would really like to cite this section - otherwise, it should probably be removed. –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * OK apologies, that link will not help with the notable people. I misunderstood you to be asking for sources about the people as a group, the "Walhaz people", which would be the Volcae. That was not what you were asking so that won't help. I have no idea how to locate information about individual people. As to that site being self published, yes, I was not suggesting it be the source. Rather it was a tertiary source inasmuch as they had collated a bibliography of 8 references and curated the information. It is a starting point. But not the starting point you wanted! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Great point, I have been prone to looking at content from unreliable sources and then research for sources. It's a helpful research approach! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; while the !votes in support and opposition were roughly equal, consensus is not determined by counting votes but by strength of argument. In that light, those in support had the strongest arguments, arguing that this is what the words are called in sources.

Arguments in opposition, in comparison, had little basis in policy, such as arguing that titles starting with a * were technically problematic.

Editors who believe that the words are not notable should bring the article to WP:AFD; notability has no bearing on what the title of the article should be. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

– WP:COMMONNAME. It is customary in historical linguistics to include an asterisk at the beginning of a word that is not attested in writing, but rather reconstructed etymologically. Jcitawy made a technical request to move Walhaz → *Walhaz. In order to maintain consistent titling, I have expanded this to cover each article in Category:Reconstructed words (except Jehovah and Yahweh, due to common usage). I also included changes to Heryomen, Pehuson, and Perkwunos to use more precise reconstructed spellings like the others (see Proto-Indo-European phonology). These are all Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Germanic, unless I am mistaken. SilverLocust 💬 13:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Walhaz → *Walhaz
 * Deh₂nu → *Deh₂nu
 * Dyēus → *Dyēus
 * Fraujaz → *Fraujaz
 * H₁n̥gʷnis → *H₁n̥gʷnis
 * H₂éwsōs → *H₂éwsōs
 * Hepom Nepōts → *H₂epom Nepōts
 * Heryomen → *H₂eryo-men
 * H₂weh₁yú → *H₂weh₁yú
 * Manu and Yemo → *Manu and *Yemo
 * Pehuson → *Péh₂usōn
 * Perkwunos → *Perkʷūnos
 * PriHyéh₂ → *PriHyéh₂
 * Sehul and Mehnot → *Seh₂ul and *Meh₁not
 * Trito (Proto-Indo-European mythology) → *Trito
 * Welnos → *Welnos
 * H₂n̥gʷʰis → *H₂n̥gʷʰis
 * Ḱérberos → *Ḱérberos
 * Dʰéǵʰōm → *Dʰéǵʰōm


 * Also pinging who commented at WP:RM/TR. SilverLocust  💬 13:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added H₂n̥gʷʰis, Ḱérberos, and Dʰéǵʰōm. You would probably be interested in this, since you created several of these articles. Have I missed any others? SilverLocust  💬 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like you got all of them.
 * Weak oppose due to possible technical issues starting with an asterisk or search engine indexing problems Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping User:SilverLocust, and thank you for creating this RM, which is very useful for consistency.
 * At RMTR I said that "*Walhaz" seems better than "Walhaz", because of the meaning that the asterisk carries. But now, seeing examples such as "*Seh₂ul and *Meh₁not" instead of "Sehul and Mehnot", and *Perkʷūnos" instead of "Perkwunos", I'm having second thoughts.
 * It would be good to have the opinion of some editors involved in linguistics. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Linguistics has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 14:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Starting an article title with an asterisk seems like a bad idea to me, particularly for searching and indexing purposes. And are there any technical limitations to doing this? Are there currently any Wikipedia article titles that begin with an asterisk? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some articles starting with *, though not that many. And there are more containing *, like M*A*S*H (film). You should still be able to find, e.g., *Walhaz by searching either Walhaz or *Walhaz. If it would cause technical problems, I would also be opposed (or willing to revert). SilverLocust  💬 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't think having special linguistic symbols in article titles is helpful. J I P  &#124; Talk 17:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We are not a dictionary. Adding asterisk will make it even more chaotic, these names are not consistent atm because someone moved these - lets fix that instead. Non of these articles starting with * are reconstructions. Sławobóg (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a linguist, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that *Walhaz is a reconstruction. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sławobóg means there are no reconstructed words among these articles . S.L. 💬 02:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tbf that is exactly why we've gathered here to discuss a title change. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Further comment: I am inclined to withdraw this, since everyone seems at least a little opposed. If anyone objects, let me know. SilverLocust 💬 02:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to withdraw, there's WP:NODEADLINE. I would say to leave it running for a bit to allow some linguists to chip in. Dr. Vogel (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if we leave it to run until it's closed, hopefully there will be some documented consensus one way or the other (and that won't happen if we close it early). Dr. Vogel (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposal makes a good point about the common practice for reconstructed words, but this is an encyclopaedia and not a dictionary. Where the word is treated here it is treated encyclopaedically. The notation is not required because the article makes the information clear about reconstruction, and because the reader of the article is not reliant upont the notation to recognise such words. It also potentially makes it harder to locate the words in a search engine. In search a * is a wildcard character and usually carries the connotation that it will match anything. Searching on a name with a * may therefore match multiple prefixes and obscure the required hits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed with how WP:SEARCH works, but WP:WLD section of that page says "The two wildcard characters are * and \?, and both can come in the middle or end of a word" (emphasis added), so I'm assuming that an initial asterisk doesn't harm searches. I didn't face issues when searching *Lisp for example. Here's a list of articles with initial asterisk on Wikipedia . &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not just Wikipedia search though. Different search engines that typically bring users to pages treat wildcards differently. However, I don't wish to overstate that case. The main search engine remains Google, and although Google allows wildcards before words, it ignores them if there is no space. Thus '* Walhaz' is a valid wildcard but '*Walhaz' is treated as 'Walhaz' and will probably still match to the page if it is *Walhaz. Also, an asterisk is allowed in a URL per RFC 1738, so I don't think the correct title template will be required. The page url will work with a * in it. I am not convinced it won't cause a problem with some search engines. In fact, I am reasonably certain it will. However the problem may be limited, and redirects will indeed help.
 * Also, on checking a range of texts, I did not find that * was used uniformly on such words in sources, but it is definitely extremely common. What I did not find is any such words used as titles and containing the *. More general texts use them in the text, but explain the usage when first introduced. Yet the absence of evidence of a * being used when the subject is used encyclopaedically as a title is not evidence that it is not used, but rather it is evidence that individual reconstructed words are rarely treated as subjects in their own right. As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I will thus strike my oppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – An * in titles is not entirely unseen, this example has immediately come to my mind, and I could image similar journal article titles in Indo-European studies. FWIW, I have not found any from the above listed *-forms appearing in a title, which is a bit of a red flag for the notability of the subject (unless in the case of size splits). –Austronesier (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support: As far as I understand, asterisks are an essential component of the reconstructed words (which is why the citations never miss it). There are zero technical restrictions with asterisks whatsoever, which is how there already exists several redirects at the asterisk title. English Wikipedia naming convention is not bound to the 26 characters on standard English keyboard, we allow the diacritics on aeiou, we allow the æ character, we allow the L with stroke character in articles about Polish subjects, and Greek letters for articles on chemicals. There is no reason to avoid asterisk in title, that is far more easily accessible on keyboard than any of the above-mentioned characters. Further, search indexing should not be affected because we allow the usage of WP:Redirects which will continue to exist from non-asterisk title. (I had previously participated in this discussion at the RMTR page, thus I was pinged above so that I could continue the formal discussion here.) &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the asterisk is omitted from the title for technical reasons, then correct title should be used to indicate this, and the asterisk should be used consistently in the article text. --Jcitawy (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete at a quick glance, none of these should be articles. I'm not sure they should even be redirects. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete is not an outcome available for a move discussion. The question is to move or not (support or oppose). If you think the articles should be deleted you would need to take these to AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Better to let readers know that the asterisk is always supposed to be there. Srnec (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose on several grounds. • Some of these articles are not This isn't supposed to be an article about the word but about the deity things represented by that reconstructed term. Either that is true or the articles need to be TNTed. Even if it were about the words, I'd still oppose (just not as strongly) for the following reasons. • As per pretty much everyone, leading with an asterisk makes finding the article through many search engines difficult or impossible. • Per, there is no real value in adding the symbol. All we get by doing so is more confusion and noise in the title. • To , I'd say yours is a stronger reason to put it in the body (perhaps the lede) than to put it in the title. • I think that picked the wrong reason to withdraw their !vote as they presented the most convincing reason to not rename the articles: "I did not find... any such words used as titles and containing the *. More general texts use [the symbol] in the text, but explain the usage when first introduced." Wikipedia is meant to be the epitome of a 'general' source (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK point 7). If nothing else is persuasive, that alone should decide the issue. Cheers, Last1in (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 4 August 2023‎ (UTC)
 * *Walhaz was not a deity. This article is very much about a word and not a deity. I haven't checked all the rest. Srnec (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all the rest are deities from Proto-Indo-European mythology. SilverLocust 💬 01:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find at least two of the responders saying that article shouldn't have existed or something on that lines, but that is clearly a domain of WP:AFD rather than RM. Here, we choose a title assuming that the article will remain. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I am pinged here, I'll respond: I did not find any evidence in the literature of these being used as a subject at all in a general and encyclopaedic fashion, as opposed to scholarly articles, where, per Austronesier's example and others I found, the asterisk is nearly always found. My oppose argument was predicated on the fact that general encyclopaedic treatments would not have an asterisk in the article title, but would likely explain the asterisk usage early in the article body. I have no evidence to support or oppose that contention, and it is that lack of evidence either way that led me to withdraw my oppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see precisely what the technical objection is. We already have some articles with asterisks, for example *astTECS. MediaWiki, search engines, and browsers have no difficulty with it in any way, as far as I can personally observe. If your experience is different, that would be helpful information if you would provide reproducible steps.Separately, note that H₂weh₁yú is now at AFD, for those who wish to read or comment on that: Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - as a linguist I find this more correct, and we should strive to be as correct and scholarly as possible. Keep the version without the asterisk as a redirect, so that the asterisk doesn't make it harder for anyone to find these. We could consider having a little template box explaining the asterisk that is included at the top of these articles, and possibly also of other articles with reconstructed forms in the article body. Doric Loon (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – if this is what reliable sources are doing (which it seems like they are) then we should be too.  Aza24  (talk)   04:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think it's a good idea to start an article title with an asterisk for the reasons I stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strong support— This has long been the standard and what we expect in linguistics. How can you even understand what specific characters (letters) indicate in reconstructions without recognizing that it is a reconstruction? I would also vote to fix the case of the first letter, as this makes a difference in some languages.2604:2D80:DE09:D400:7125:F70B:3808:3313 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)