Talk:Proto-Germanic folklore

Draft converted
,, , , —as you can see, the draft we were working on is now live. Please modify it here and interlink wherever possible on related articles. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You were right to merge the columns 'translation' and 'etymology'. There's a bug in the section 'Entities' though. Best regards, Alcaios (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch—zapped it! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Langobardic
In at least one instance we're listing Langobardic as an East Germanic language here (namely Gautaz). However, Langobardic is generally seen as a West Germanic language closely connected to OHG: it shows evidence of the Second sound shift, for instance. Cf. Lombardic language. Tellingly, the Langobardic form of Gautaz is Gausus, which seems to show the sound shift (cf. German beißen, Engl. bite).--Ermenrich (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , as a Germanic linguist, you might have citations readily available if anyone should wish them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference to de Vries 2000 for *Gautaz is to an item not listed in the reflist, so it is in any case a flawed citation (one of 4 to this volume). The Lgb form is correct (it occurs in the Edictus Rothari), but I don't imagine de Vries himself thinks Lgb is EGmc. --Pfold (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping a close eye on this, all. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

, is that de Vries you added the same as "de Vries 2000"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Berig (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The way to do this is to have the actual reprint year with year= and use orig-date= for the date of the 1st edition. That automatically fixes the linking. I'd do it myself but am a bit swamped at the moment. --Pfold (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It worked, thanks for the tip, Pfold!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source was already there, but with a different edition. I replaced the refs and assumed that the 1977 edition (the one I have at hand) has the same pagination as the 2000 edition (is it a reprint?). Simek's Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie is also duplicated by the English edition. This is not vital, obviously, but it would be better if we had only one edition per source. Alcaios (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've checked Worldcat: the 1977 and 2000 editions do have the same number of pages. 1977 / 2000. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The article title
, The current title (“Proto-Germanic paganism”) is extremely close to the article Germanic paganism. Since this article is mostly a list wouldn’t something like “List of reconstructed concepts in Germanic paganism” be more appropriate?—Ermenrich (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a preference, but "List of ..." would be in line with WP:NCLL. We just need to name this article, Proto-Celtic paganism (which was originally named Proto-Celtic folklore), and the freshly-created Proto-Indo-Iranian paganism in a consistent way. Alcaios (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * pinging previous contributors to this talk page:, ,.
 * Sorry, just saw this. I went with folklore because this encompasses reconstructions of elements of folklore, like mythology, legend, and folk belief. I think folklore is most appropriate with this in mind. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move it back.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)