User talk:Berig/Archive 6 (March 29, 2008 - May 8, 2008)

Runic inscriptions in Hagia Sophia

 * Thanks!--Berig (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like?
Would you like me to fix your archives, by adding it to a box?-- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? You can have a go :)--Berig (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, but it looks crappy because of the type of box, would you like me to make your box automatic, so everytime you create a archive page it will be added to the box automatically, and then the box will be smaller and it will look neater. T r U C o 9 31 1 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds interesting, and thanks for your help! I have made a minor change to it.--Berig (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Frige/Frea/Friia/Freyja/Frigg
Hello Berig, right now we have these two articles: Frige and Frigg. Do you think they should be merged? I think Frige should probably be merged into Frigg and original sources precisely cited but I am not sure how we should handle this Langobardic tale as there is the issue with the sort of hybrid Frigg/Freyja name in place, probably relating to a time before the figure somehow split. And what do you think about how we should handle the problem of Freyja and Frigg? There's quite a lot of commentary out there about how the two were probably one and we could make an article about it, which might solve this big naming problem. Then there's the issue with the identification of the Merserburg Incantation with either being Freyja or Frigg, which I see you've encountered the very protective anonymous IP that has taken up residence there (no offense, Anonymous IP Guardian). bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is an ideal solution for questions like this. I think Frige should be merged into the Frigg article for linguistic reasons: the Continental Germanic attestations clearly refer to names that are cognate with Frigg, whereas the identifications with Freyja are clearly not etymological but based on superficial similarity of forms and the fact that the two goddesses are obviously related. Consequently, I think that Frigg should be the main article for any discussions, and Freyja should be the subordinate one.--Berig (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, but I thought Freyja had more to do with Freyr than with Frigg? Freyr represents male, animal and agricultural fertility (depicted sometimes with a gigantic phallus) with Freyja being his female version (sibling gods are mythologically often symbolic of a duality just like offspring is often a version of the parent (Athena>Zeus, Fenris>Loke, Kore/Persephone>Demeter). Freyr, like Freyja, also has an unusual spouse. I don't know if Frigg has a male version in the Asir? Anyway, given that the Vanir are earth gods the link to fertility is more intuitive for Freyr/Freyja than with the Asir gods of the sky. On the lines of offspring=parent the actual source of Freyja (but not her name) might be Nerthus, since Nerthus is female but the Norse form of the name, Njörðr, is that of the father of Freyr and Freyja.--AkselGerner (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Goaaatlanddddd
You fixed my spelling error,...but I am pretty sure my book says Goatland too.
 * I checked the Old Norse original text and it says Gautland.--Berig (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, you win this battle! Fancy pantys abilities to read old Norse =) ShieldDane (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey now that we are best friends forever, I was wondering do you know any notable 3rd party sources who discuss the importance of the Saga of Egil and Asmund, that I can use to put more information as to why they are notable, etc? ShieldDane (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I haven't got any such information at hand.--Berig (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm okay thanks, I just made this article as well Asmund Berserkers-Slayer. I know neither that that article nor the Egil one-Hand one is finished, after those I also plan on lengthening the main saga entry. About Asmund though, in my book it doesn't seem mention him being that guy's foster son, and as far as I know this might be the only English reference of Asmund for me to use. I have a great deal literature about the sagas, however there is only so much available in english.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShieldDane (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be better if you ask User:Haukurth who is the real Wikipedia expert on sagas.--Berig (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's big and scary and powerful, I'll wait until I have more contributions before i attempt to speak with the mighty Haukurth himself. ShieldDane (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. He is a kind, helpful and very knowledgable editor.--Berig (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Berig is too modest, I think he's the resident expert on the Legendary sagas. Haukur (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Tjängvide image stone

 * Thanks!--Berig (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Most popular articles
I've been using this tool to determine which articles on Norse topics are most popular.


 * 1) Viking 95,700 views in February 2008
 * 2) Norse mythology 93,692 views in February 2008
 * 3) Odin 72,336 views in February 2008
 * 4) Thor 62,320 views in February 2008
 * 5) Loki 57,837 views in February 2008
 * 6) Troll 40,825 views in February 2008
 * 7) Valkyrie 39,940 views in February 2008
 * 8) Ragnarök 31,496 views in February 2008
 * 9) Yggdrasil 23,278 views in February 2008
 * 10) Viking Age 20,530 views in February 2008

See also here where I've checked some less popular articles too. I think these results are interesting, I hadn't really realized that the mythology topics were so popular. Haukur (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the list above Valhalla and Runic alphabet are missing, I've updated the other list. Silly me, forgetting to check the runes :) Haukur (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What a great tool! I checked out some of my most obscure articles, and there are actually many people who read them :). Thanks Haukur!--Berig (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just adding to the comparison
 * Valhalla 41,148 views in February 2008
 * Runic alphabet 31,256 views in February 2008
 * Awsome.--Berig (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a very interesting tool, I'm glad we've finally got it. The Long Tail of obscure articles certainly gets a bunch of hits, sometimes encouragingly so, but I've also been wondering which of the very popular articles I could improve. Viking is a terminological nightmare (i.e. English vs. Norse, scholarly vs. popular uses of the word) while Norse mythology is just too big. I also find it hard to wrap my mind around Odin, we have more than one article on him. Thor and Loki would be doable and I think Valhalla would be comparatively easy. I may consider those next time I feel like spending lots of time on a Wikipedia article. Haukur (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm considering expanding Viking funeral, which gets about 4000 hits a month.--Berig (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With this in mind, the Odin article(s) could really use a major overhauling. The Thor article isn't as bad (though obviously the Eddic depictions" and "sagas" sections need major work and it needs more sources) but the Odin article is very poor and, it appears, one of our most viewed articles. I think we ought to bring it in line with some of the more fleshed out articles where we basically spit out all the sources first and then afterwards add in the theories, instead of the big, unsourced mess that exists there now. bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might be a good idea.--Berig (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks!--Berig (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ring of Pietroassa
Hi Berig. I am currently working on expanding the Gothic runic inscriptions article, which might turn into a few separate articles. Right now I'm on the Ring of Pietroassa (it's in my sandbox for the time being). I thought you might have some information or helpful hints regarding readings or new sections. The 'Meaning' section is currently under construction, so ignore it for now. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look the day after tomorrow when have more time on my hand.--Berig (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. I have completed a satisfactory draft (still in my Sandbox; see link above) and would appreciate any comments or further suggestions you might have. My plan is to put this up as its own article soon as a spin-off of the Gothic runic inscriptions article. Thanks again. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking is fine, particularly when constructive in nature as in the present case. :) If I understand your comment, I should change things like:
 * This reading was followed by early scholars, notably Taylor, who translates "dedicated [hailag] to the temple [ō-wī(h)] of the Goths [gutanī]", and Diculescu (1923), who translates "sacred [hailag] to the Jove [iowī] (i.e. Thunraz) of the Goths [gutan(ī)]".
 * ...to something like...
 * This reading was followed by early scholars, notably Taylor, who transcribes hailag ōwī gutanī ("dedicated to the temple of the Goths"), and Diculescu (1923), who transcribes hailag (i)owī gutanī ("sacred to the Jove [i.e. Thunraz] of the Goths").
 * If I've missed your point, please do let me know. Thanks again. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem here is that - as far as I can tell - the sources don't (always) make such a clear distinction. Düwel, for example, has gutaniowihailag and Gutanī ō[þal] wī[h] hailag. It's clear that the bracketed material is Düwel's addition, but does this formatting remain for the article? And the 19th century material is completely out of line with modern conventions. As I seem to be pretty thick a.t.m., perhaps I should just create the article and then we can discuss this in the necessary detail on the appropriate talkpage. I can give you exact quotes from the literature I have, and you (seeing as you seem to have more experience with the formatting and all) can correct as necessary. Does that sound reasonable? Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried to create the article to help with this discussion, but I guess replacing the redirect with the new text doesn't cut it. A search still goes to the redirect page (Gothic runic inscriptions. Do you know what I'm doing wrong? Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Looks like the edit worked. I'll set up the talkpage so that the discussion can take place over there. Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about seeming pedantical - I appreciate the attention to detail, and I would like to get it right. I'll start putting up the source quotes on the talkpage, and we can work from there. Thanks for all your help. Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the talkpage is in progress. Feel free to jump in and get me sorted. :) Aryaman (Enlist!) 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Berig. Thanks again for all your help on the Ring of Pietroassa article. I just added a final paragraph, and I am considering nominating it for review. This would be my first attempt at getting an article rated, so I'm not so sure about how that works. In my opinion (which is certainly biased, seeing as I am so involved with the article), it should pass a 'good' rating without too much fuss. I've checked it against the requirements, and I don't see any problems. I would appreciate to have your feedback on this before I undertake nomination. Thanks again. Aryaman (Enlist!) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the article (under the Archeology subsection - hopefully that was the best place to put it). Thanks for the tips and edits. Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

dyk well done!

 * Thanks! :)--Berig (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kari Solmundarson
Started a new article on this character from Njal's Saga. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A very nice and interesting article, Brian. I am afraid I haven't got anything to add from my books.--Berig (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nix and Rhinemaidens
The problem is that Wagner's Rhinemaidens derives from Der Ring des Niebelungen. That is its natural main article. I also have a problem with the article name "Nix", which I have always understood as referring to a male water-sprite, the female equivalent being "nixie". I may be wrong on this, but the stark singular "Nix" still seems odd. Anyway, I have changed the "main article" to the opera title, and added a different tag to direct people to the Nix article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Wagner's Rhinemaidens derive from Nixies in the Niebelungenlied, but your present solution looks fine. Titles are usually in the singular per Naming conventions.--Berig (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jungfrukällan
Hello again Berig, I have a question that perhaps you will able to answer. Have you ever seen Jungfrukällan by Ingmar Bergman? Well, the movie claims in the opening credits that it is based off of a "13th century Swedish ballad". Ever since I saw it some time ago, I've been curious what that ballad is, particularly because the film contains a strange scene involving a figure who is strongly suggested as Odin and deals with matters of the Christianization of Sweden. It's a beautifully done film. Any idea? bloodofox: (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Swedish Wikipedia it's this one. Haukur (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Haukur. I had a look at the ballad some months ago. IIRC, it does not mention Odin at all. I believe Odin was added to the movie in order to put the events in those days when paganism and christianity still existed side by side.--Berig (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweden does, however, have a ballad with a version of the tale of Thor reclaiming his hammer. Haukur (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there is also the ballad Stolt herr Alf where Odin is appealed to before a violent deed is performed. I have been planning to write an article on it for some time now.--Berig (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Haukur! I guess I ought to look around on some of the other Wikipedia versions more often. I'm looking forward to those articles, Berig. By the way, if either of you have anything to add to the Nine Herbs Charm article I just created, it would be a welcome addition. bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have written a stub on Stolt Herr Alf.--Berig (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Viking funeral

 * Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats. Passed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, Midvinterblot can meet GA too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stolt Herr Alf
Would you clarify the grimm part? I am not sure if it was a word mentioned in the ballad or if the scholars were using it in papers. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 18:19 2008 April 13 (UTC)
 * I hope it's clearer now.--Berig (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks!--Berig (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

again

 * Thanks!--Berig (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--Berig (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a nice surprise! Thanks!--Berig (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks..again!
Thank you for kindness, Berig! It's so nice to know you're around, keeping an eye on things.. ;) Best wishes, Pia (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, dear Pia! I am always glad if I can be of any help.--Berig (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Uppsala redirects to Götaland theory
Berig, you seem to know your way around Wikipedia. I contact you because I am confused how to find info on the subject I wanted to read about. it feels unsound to be directed to a description of a pseudo-scientific theory. I don't know how to correct this, and I don't know where the article about Gamla Uppsala can be found. BTW, is Swedish OK to use in the talk pages? Wahlin (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to redirect wrongly after an older merger. I'll fix it so it redirects to Gamla Uppsala.--Berig (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, you can use Swedish, but other editors may find it impolite.--Berig (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tackar.Wahlin (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem :). Thanks for pointing it out.--Berig (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

List of kings of the Angles
Hi Berig. Could I persuade you to take a glance at the map on this article and the talk page? Also related to this problem, do you know any information about the first settlers of Holstein (prior to the founding of Esesfeld)? Valentinian T / C 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Valentinian. I have answered on the article's talkpage.--Berig (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Coller
I added some references to Jeremy Coller. You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Jeremy Coller. --Eastmain (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DR 108
Hello! Here is a photograph I took of DR 108 in Kolind as you've requested. It is easily the most interesting thing in Kolind as far as I could tell. The runes aren't painted but let me know if you'd prefer a color image. bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - Here is a color image, per request! bloodofox: (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alu (runic)
I've also created a quick stub (from a redirect) about "Alu" here: Alu (runic). In the future, I'll pull inscriptions from Rundata containing the term and sort them into what they're inscribed on there if someone doesn't beat me to it. You're welcome to help, as always. bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wielbark culture
Hi, Berig. I noticed you have been working on the Wielbark culture map recently. In my research for the Spearhead of Kovel, I ran across a book that has some interesting maps and discussion on the expansion of Wielbark into the Przeworsk cultural area over four historical periods, and I thought you might be interested in taking a look. The surrounding chapters are also worth a read, as the author discusses his take on the identity of the Wielbark culture (which he views as multi-tribal Germanic, including Vandals, Heruli and, of course, Goths). Here's the link to the online text:

Take a look at pages 35-40 for the maps and discussion. And have a nice day! Aryaman (Enlist!) 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I just looked up the book, and will read through the online sections soon (especially regarding his discussion of sacral-kingdom in relationship to the ring - pp. 506-510). Though it sounds like you might have the book in your personal collection, here's the link to the online (searchable) portions of the text:


 * Thanks again! Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Greece Runestones
Hi again, Berig. I noticed that you put Greece Runestones up for GA review. As I have not been involved with this article, I could review it, theoretically speaking. Is that something that you would welcome? Or would you prefer that I make corrections to the text outside of the review process? Let me know... Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted my preliminary review on the appropriate talkpage. I wanted to give you the chance of going through the proposed changes and discussing them if necessary, so I have put up a fairly detailed list. If you prefer that I make the changes, let me know. However, there will be some things that will require your intervention. Please feel free to contact me if there are questions regarding anything I have posted. Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked through U 73, U 104, U 112, U 136, U 140, U 201, U 270, U 358 and U 431, and I think they're pretty much good to go. I added one source, as it seemed relevant and potentially interesting to anyone wanting to research further on the topic of inheritance in runic inscriptions (practically worth an article in itself, really). I also added one 'fact' tag: please see if the related claim can be substantiated. I apologize in advance for the drastic cut in images (2 more removed), but they were not directly related and the layout works much better now, IMO. Well, I'm wrapping up for the night here. Have a good one. Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question needn't be removed entirely. But, as you recognize, it is assumed early on that all the stones concern individuals somehow related to the Guard. Thus, when I ran across this (otherwise unecessary) claim expressly mentioned in the text for one of the monuments, I was expecting to find some particular reference. If there isn't, that's fine. You could easily reframe the sentence to reflect the general assumption applying in this case as well. ;) Aryaman (Enlist!) 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That information related to Visäte (i.e. the methods used to identify scribes) would be a very nice addition in the form of a footnote. (Indeed, I was wondering how the identity of the runemaster was ascertained - hence the clumsy editing of the passage on my part.) Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After discovering the proper code, I have been playing around with different methods of modifying the ToC. With the 'limit'-parameter, one is able to limit the heading level which appears in the ToC at the top of the article. As you can imagine, this leaves us with quite a bit of freedom in designing the layout. The current version is the shortest possible, and the images have been curtailed accordingly. However, I'm not going to demand that this version remain for the article. You are certainly free to do some experimenting of your own to find the right mix appropriate for the article as a whole. In retrospect, if it was something you felt strongly about in the first place, we could theoretically re-insert the headings for the translations, transliterations, etc. without having them screw up the layout. But I would like to give you a go at it before undertaking any other format-related edits. (And I apologize for not knowning about this ToC-'limit' code earlier.) Aryaman (Enlist!) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done a copy-edit on the whole of the lead, and feel satisfied with the text. I'm working through the individual monuments (I'm up to U 922 now), and I should be able to finish the rest tomorrow sometime. Unless you are unhappy with the lead text or minor changes I have made here and there, we should be able to wrap up the review tomorrow or the next day. (One thing was on my mind: Would you mind if I changed "Transliteration of the runes into Latin characters" into "Latin transliteration", "Transcription into Old Norse" into "Old Norse transcription" and "Translation in English" into "English translation"? As a recurring text, I think it would be best to keep it as short as possible.) Anyways, thanks for your patience. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have completed my review. The last issue for me is the one indicated above. Other than that, the article is ready for GA-status, IMO. I'm just waiting for agreement on your part with the changes that have been made before I make it official. Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Ancient Germanic culture
The Ancient Germanic culture portal has been updated to include a module on runic artifacts. Please feel free to include leads and images to noteworthy articles at Portal:Ancient_Germanic_culture/Runic_inscription. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)